Cool News
AMERICAN PSYCHO review
Hey folks, Harry here and the here is back in my home town of Austin. As many of you have been aware, I have only just returned from the FLOATING FILM FESTIVAL, which took me from Aruba all the way through the Panama Canal and finally winding up in Costa Rica. Quite a trip, I must say. I have quite a few stories to tell about this trip, and you'll be reading them as I get them formatted and the pictures all set and pretty, but for now... I'm going to write up my look at AMERICAN PSYCHO.
First off, upon the FLOATING FILM FESTIVAL, I found this to be the most unlikely of films to appear. You see... this festival is mainly attended by the silver generations, and it was just my pre-opinion that those with hair the color of the screens in front of them... might... just might be offended by a serial killer NC-17 murder-fest called AMERICAN PSYCHO. Meanwhile, I on the otherhand was very much looking forward to the film. Strange how reality alters all those pre-perceptions.
The screening took place quite early in the A.M, the night after the annual Floating Film Fest Sing-A-Long thingee. I had fully intended to go check this event out the night before, but I felt the need to get some much needed writing out of the way, and so... I decided to just hold off and take care of business. So I woke up early, took the elevator down two decks, and met with my other 'Floaters' (the name of those aboard the FLOATING FILM FESTIVAL) and took my seat on the aisle, about 3 rows from the front in the center.
The screen wasn't the biggest in the world, but the audience was an eager one. Ebert had already seen the film, and was basically here to "see how long till the first audience member left." Hmmmm... I guess that speaks of his opinion of the film.
Jim Emerson of Reel.Com gave an introduction to the film, though he had not yet seen the movie. He detailed the history of the film as he had heard it... reflected what his understanding of the original novel was... and then the film started.
The film is a cheesy mid-eighties slasher film that attempts to try to con the audience into believing that it is a lot more than that. Personally, I feel the movie is garbage. Oh, it has some clever stuff.... but... I really can't stand this film. And to get into it... I'm going to have to discuss SPOILERS, so if you want to leave the review at this point... Just take on off... No hard feelings, wait.. see the movie for yourself... then come listen to my wild rantings..
Alright... here we go... I hate the movie for the following reasons...
1. First there is the inane dialogue about eighties music trivia while murdering people. This is that same drivil that folks trying to be Quentin Tarantino spew out to make themselves seem to be cool. And ya know... any one of the little monologues about... oh... say Whitney Houston or Phil Collins, might've been cool... But to continually bombard us with these obscenities... one after another... just became a bit to self-indulgent for my tastes.
2. Christian Bale, who I once loved when he was a child, drove me INSANE during this film. Have you ever seen SIX STRING SAMURAI? Well, I love that film, save for one scene and character that drove me batty... It's the cannibalistic 50's family with a Dave Letterman-esque father figure that screams in a joyful xanex blitz all of his dialogue. I loathe this character... This is exactly Christian Bale's delivery throughout the film... Like fingernails upon a chalkboard...
3. The lack of commitment by the filmmaker. You see... In the great slasher films... people really die. Not in imaginations...not maybe could be possibly sorts of manners... But dead in a very real way. Here in this film... They decide to take the... DID IT REALLY HAPPEN wink wink exit at the end. They never show a murder... they all take place off camera. The gore is lame and neither funny in a grand guignol funny sort of way... or in the teeth grinding realism of say the shark bites in THE BEACH. Instead... It's just... off camera. At the end of the film... I felt as though hours of my life had just been wasted.
4. NC-17. God, I hate that rating. First there is not a reasonable reason on the surface on the planet on why this film should not be rated R. The violence nor the sex even begin to approach anything vaguely approaching NC-17. Though I do know exactly why it is rated such. You see... there is a scene in the film where Christian Bale is banging a gal from behind while that girl is seemingly banging the girl in front of her. Now mind you... There is no genitalia shown. No penetration. No close ups... no Jizz shots. But you see, the Mpaa gets confused by Doggy Style, and tend to automatically rate it as being ANAL SEX thereby making it NC-17. Now, My belief is that this film should simply be released as being the piece of crap that it is. Psycho's imitate cool things they see... this film is filled with STUPIDITY.
I was bitterly disappointed by the film. I love gore films, ultraviolence and satires. This film fails all the way across the board for me. However, I must admit that it has moments... and to some... they really really enjoyed it. And had you told me in advance that I would be upon a cruise ship arguing and debating with an audience of silver haired film goers that were supporting AMERICAN PSYCHO, while I would be bashing it... I never would have believed it. But that is exactly the case. The film is a waste of resources and talent.
-
+ Expand All
-
When I saw the trailor I thought this would be one of the best thriller/horror flick since Silence of the Lambs. I'm really sorry to hear it sucks.
-
A shit film, from a shit novel, written by a no talent hack, disguising as satire. Read Palahniuks Survivor instead. Great read, similar, but better style, - and he actually has a point. GG
-
American Psycho is 9 years out of place. NBK did it all and did it better.
-
The scariest psychos have always been the ones that do not say anything. Just have that cold robotic stare. No Humanity, just emptiness. Kind of like THE IRON GIANT when He lost His blossoming humanity. In a film like American Psycho we have a contrived premise and as a result the supposed
-
I admit that the book American Psycho wasn
-
Feb 18, 2000 5:33:12 AM CST
So, Harry, how long before the first audience member walked out?
by cereal killer
I can't say I'm all that surprised to find that this film is a disappointment. I've never been a big fan of Christian Bale. He was alright as a kid but anymore when I see his picture he always has the same facial expression. He always has that fake "This is the look I give when I wanna look cool" look on his face. Anybody who tries too hard to be cool is automatically not cool. Off topic, that's why I always thought Richie Cunningham was cooler than the Fonz. Fonzie thought too much about it and had to always tell everyone how cool he was. That's a mark of insecurity and insecurity is not cool. Richie always stood up for what he believed in and that is much cooler than wearing a leather jacket and starting the jukebox with your fist. But since Fonzie was created by Garry Marshall, a man who wouldn't know cool if it sat on his face, what more could we expect. Anyhow, Christian Bale, with his "I'm so cool" attitude, can screw himself.
-
Personally, I really liked Bale's character in Six String Samurai (slice me off a thigh, honye-bunch!). It wasn't subtle or anything, but I thought it was funny. Anyway, the book was overrated and I never really had high hopes for this movie. Incidentally, Harry, all that pseudo-Tarantino 80's music crap was a big factor in the book. He spends entire chapters on Phil Collins and Whitney Houston. I wonder if the end of the movie is as disappointing as that of the book.
-
So, Slaanesh, you're a Python fan.
-
Yes, the violence was funny, but not that funny, and I like that kinda stuff a lot, mind you. I
-
Shame about American Psycho.However it sounds similar to the book-lots of inane lengthy descriptions of fashion and music.The book also has a strange ending-is it all in his mind?I had hoped that the film would just keep the best bits of the book ,but obviously not.
-
Hey GG, you
-
This is probably old news, but I just read it at http://www.filmunlimited.co.uk/News_Story/Exclusive/0,4029,137293,00.html. It says 'Red Dragon, the first in Thomas Harris's best-selling trilogy, has been made into a film before - in 1986 under the title of Manhunter - but producers want to make a big-budget version. John Gilstrap, who has just finished writing the script, confidently predicts: "I believe Red Dragon will be a much better film than Manhunter."' John Gilstrap can FUCK OFF, because Manhunter's great and can't be improved upon. So says Mickey Finn.
-
Sadly I haven
-
I'm afraid I haven't seen Hated, GG. I must say, my favourite tagline for a Buttgereit movie is for Schramm: 'Today I am dirty. Tomorrow I'll just be dirt.' I mean, can you imagine J
-
Manhunter is absolutely perfect and the fact that Industry people want it remade to slot in with Lambs and Hannibal is an indictment of how plainly stupid people can be in the film business. The Keep also is another lost great.
-
No point in elaborating. Good review.
-
Would this film have been better in the 80's? Would it have been better if it parodied the material it was based upon? I guess that would piss off fans of the author, but the book has many detractors as well. I hope if they do ever get around to doing one of Douglas Coupland's books the themes will still be relevant to the general public. Which reminds me, does anyone know the status of the films based on Tom Robbins' Still Life With Woodpecker (Robert Altman was last attatched), and Robert Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land? I pray that these two do justice to their sources.
-
American Psycho the book was a work of genius. It made the very perceptive connection between the way in which a psychotic objectifies people, and the way in which 1980's materialsim, by placing a value on everything, objectified everything.
In other words that unthinking consumerism is psychotic in its nature.
The book made you accept this argument by presenting you with a supperficially very successful person, an uberyuppie. This character was obsessed with his bland but expensive tastes in music and clothes, a charicature of 80's America. The book then got you to believe that the central character was a mass murderer.
The book ended by making you realise that the man was mad, his killings were mad (and probably imaginary), and so was his obsession with material goods.
Unlike 99% of movies, this was book said something worth hearing in an intelligent way. And at the time it was something that many people, especially you folks in the USA, really needed to hear. It was also very funny.
It sounds like the film has tried to stay as close to the book as possible, which makes a certain amount of sense if you are going to pay up for the rights.
It is pathetic to see a bunch of geeks slagging off an intelligent work of literature because they were hoping for a slasher comedy with suits.
Please Grow Up.
-
I love the concept, hate the execution, thats why I love Fight Club (film + book) so much; cuz it succeeds in all points, where AP (the book, haven
-
Shame man, i loved this book, so funny, so depraved, but i think it would take a real talent to bring a good version of this to the screen. Thats why since seeing the trailer and all the hype building up to this my interest has waned. David Fincher, David Lynch, David Cronenburg, in fact anybody called David by the sound of it would have been more appropriate for this. Oliver Stone man now this could have been up his street once upon a time. Ah well at least with the way things are going it will get re-made within the next ten years so perhaps someone else can have a stab (no pun intended) then.
-
The trick with the book is to read it very very fast. Half the humor comes from the repetition, from the rhythm of the writing. I guess there was always every chance that the rhythm would be lost on the translation to the screen. Did they give it a 3 act structure? The fact that the narrator repeats himself so often and can go for several pages without a full stop ties together the monomania of a psychotic and the monomania of 80's/90's material greed very nicely.... 'The topic on Oprah tonight: has Patrick Swayze sold out?'. Priceless. The way he can work himself up into a frenzy over a killing and then suddenly change gear and have a chapter on the discography of Huey Lewis and the News never fails to make me laugh. But if they have put in all three of those chapters (Genesis and Whitney Huston being the other two), it would take up too much for the running time. AP has my favorite last line of any book ever. Glamorama, now that's crap. I think.... what I'd like to hear is a film review by someone who liked the book... though to be honest I'm expecting this film to be a big let down.
-
I think it's sad that we live at a point when what should be simple, common-sense understanding of human nature (people with no connection in their lives tend to be more prone to taking refuge in violence and/or materialism) is termed "genuis" or "revolutionary". It's nothing new, and certainly should not be regarded as any kind of elevated perception.
btw, Todd's post about physchosis and TiG was right on, IMHO.
-
Haven't seen it yet but thoroughly enjoyed the book a very scathing satire of the 80's. The comment about the Tarantino style dialogue concerning 80s music trivia appears in the original book and is integral to the understanding of the character not a homage to any of Tarantino's movies
-
Damn, my finger slipped. Twice. :)
-
...inasmuch as it takes zero imagination to draw attention to yourself by being offensive or extreme. I confess that I get a visceral thrill from watching the fictional depiction of violence, but that doesn't mean that I project value onto extreme material that has none. In the case of Natural Born Killers, I think the film's a great comedy. In the case of The Life and Death of Bob Flanagan, Supermasochist, I think it interesting that a man with cystic fibrosis decided to turn pain into a minor artform and incorporate comedy into it. Mickey Finn over and out.
-
Somebody needs to stop propagating the myth that Bret Easton Ellis is a writer. And making films from his drivel is confusing everyone even more--Bad books-bad movies. Lili Taylor's character WAS the bad writer in "Warhol"--which is exactly what Mary Harron should have done instead: The Bret Easton Ellis Story. The confused character in American Psycho has nothing on the self diluted, pretentious, talentless proto-yuppie who created him.
-
Where did this whole "greed culture" thing get started?
Oh yeah, the liberal left. A "vast left wing conspiracy" to
degrade and downplay the great Reagan years.
America was no more greedy in the 80's than was in the 90's
and is today. There is no such thing as "the decade of greed".
Don't let a stupid Oliver Stone movie and the liberal left
sucker you into believing this one too. -
-O. It is perfectly appropriate for you to judge the psychosis of the author of a book because you use big words like "propogate" so I'll rest assured that you know what you are talking about.
Now, what puzzles me is how anyone here can call a movie "shit" that they haven't seen yet. You don't have a right. You sound like those ultra-conservatives trying to ban "The Last Temptation of Christ" before anybody else saw it either.
I haven't seen the film yet, but I have read the book. I like it. I like the fact that it consciously tries to subvert the typical linear narrative style so that the reader is confused as to what's real and what isn't. Having said that, I understand that someone may not like the book. I can't claim that they don't like it because they didn't get it because that would be presumptuous as well as insulting and since I'm not the author, I don't know what his point was although I think I do.
I got a sense very early on in the book that none of the murders were actually happening. The narrator would say these horrible things to people that those people would obviously ignore, so I assumed it was all in his head. This made a pretty perceptive comment on materialism and the alienation it causes, I thought. How everybody connects with things instead of each other.
Which is not far from the processes that go on when a person tries to review a film without seeing it. You are connecting to ideas; not the reality. See the film for yourself so you can have an informed opinion.
At the very least, this film will do well if it can avoid the hit-you-over-the-head-with-my-point-about-how-violence-is-wrong-and-the-media's-responsible pretension of Natural Born Killers. The movies tag line summed the movie up: "The media made them superstars." There, America. Now you know what this film is about and we'll save you the pain of thinking and figuring it out for yourself. The message here is good so you can safely like this movie.
It's about the process, folks. The interaction between director and audience. Think for yourselves. Don't let someone else tell you what the point is. -
Actually Amy, commodity fetishism and the profit motive are inherent to the capitalist mode of production at any era. What people are usually referring to when they describe the
-
Amy:
Labels are a safety valve. Instead, lets all take responsibility for ourselves and our behavior and stop blaming others. If there's no such thing as "greed" years, then, indeed, there is no such thing as "Reagan years" or, for that matter "80's" and "90's." Labels are an illusion. They define our perceptions. But our perceptions are just that. They aren't reality. -
Feb 18, 2000 10:51:41 AM CST
Anyone who didnt like the movie or book....JUST DIDNT GET IT...
by eric draven
Well, ok....i HAVENT seen the movie yet...but the book...i am in the middle of reading the book for the 5th time. Anyone who thinks the book is just about voilence, doest get what a great satire it is about the materialism and yuppie culture of the 80's. I very much doubt that all the killings were a hallucination in Bateman's mind, and the end of the novel doesnt even suggest that. Remember, this was a society where clothes and brand names were more important than people...everybody is always confusing everyone with eachother. All the dudes have expensive suits, slicked back hair, wear Oliver Peoples non-prescription glasses, and constantly confuse everyone. Here is the last line of the book, which, i dont know if it ends this way in the movie, so if you want to consider it a spoiler, then dont read i guess.....
all the guys are in (another) resteraunt and then the last line is " ...an above one of the doors covered by red velvet drapes in Harry's is a sign and on that sign in letters that match the drapes' color are the words THIS IS NOT AN EXIT."
Some people just dont get it, but to me, it makes sense....
Anyone who sees the movie, who hasent read the book, probably just wont "get" the movie.
Obviously, my opinion is still untainted with the movie, but i have a feeling i will like this movie, because i can see past the violence for what the book (and possibly the movie) is, a dark satirical look at the materialism of the 80's (as seen through the eyes of a mass murderer, of course). -
Eric,
This is *still* a society where brand names are often more important than people...in many ways, it always has been.
After reading some of these comments I am actually a little more interested in seeing the film now. Whether it will be a well-made film I don't know - but story-wise, the fact that it seems to be using the pop-culture label of "80s attitude" as a metaphor is a lot more interesting than trying to draw a straight cause-and-effect parallel. After all, it's disconnection that causes things such as rampant consumerism or rampant violence, not the other way 'round. Or so it seems to me... -
Was it based on the book?
If so, how could it be good? it would be nothing more than another sliver (how do you pronounce that by the way) in the making -
sorry, just goes to prove you should read the previous messages before typing an answer.
-
Anytime a difficult and detailed book is brought to screen, there are bound to be changes made. They obviously couldn't literally bring the scenes in the book to the screen because they were too violent and graphic. I understand why mass audiences probably won't like the movie - simply because they haven't read the book and won't "get" the point of the story. OL' PAINLESS - if you go back and reread the book, there is a man he brutally kills in the guys own apartment and then Bateman lies and says the guy is out of the country. But in later chapters, all the gore and blood are gone from the guys apartment and you find out the guy really is in England. So, you come to realize that at least that murder, if not all of them, are in Bateman's head.
-
This review sounds like someone's dumb, wildly-off-the-mark, short-sighted Talk-back comments, not the cine-literate (or even just "literate") well considered report of an experienced critic. Jesus. From the curator of this site - the main (most influential / important?) film site - this review was irresponsible. Clearly it is a viewer's reaction and therefore will doubtless be representative of a number of other (potential) viewers, in other words: it is a reaction and therefore valid and of interest to us readers. But when writing the official review for this site, Harry must take on responsibility to AT LEAST FUCKING THINK ABOUT THE FILM. I'm not saying that he has to read the books when he writes about an adaptation, or research the other film/s by the director, but Christ! To slate a film based on a major literary work because it doesn't titillate as much as his personal favourites OF A DIFFERENT GENRE, to find the film wanting because it doesn't fulfill the indulgencies of the conventions of a genre that this film is only very very superficially related to (it is not a violence / slasher film, the drive is not the violence it is the 80's, the conceit is the violence) is against everything that AICN is useful for. I have not seen the film and granted, there have been some bad reviews on Dark Horizons and one orgasmic one that I'll bet a billion dollars was a plant. I'm not saying that this is a great film or a great adaptation or whatever because I don't know. But I have read the book (which I love, but still this is not the point) and I have confidence in Mary Harron having seen I Shot Andy Warhol and knowing how long she has worked on the American Psycho project, to treat the material with intelligence and insight. I will bet that billion dollars from earlier that there is a whole world more to this film than Harry has taken into consideration. The review is dangerous.
-
So you DON`T think that materialism has reached a ridiculous high in our country today? Cause I sure do. And I don`t just mean the 80`s, I mean now!
-
Feb 18, 2000 1:21:28 PM CST
WOW! Harry, I've never read a review like this from you before!
by emorr
Harry! Jeezus! You must be pissed! Even when you dislike something you're somewhat positive. Man, if you hated it, it MUST be awful. Thanks for the review.
-
Well, I can't say I'm surprised in the least that this is a bad film. If anyone here has tried to read the book you're probably not shocked. This is the ONLY book I have ever returned in my entire life because I felt offended that I had purchased. It was the worst written, most inane piece of dribble I have ever read. Probably like many people here I heard about the book from all its notoriety in the media. Well, let me clear something up for you. It's not some kind of scandalous, gore-filled, post Hannibal Lecter tale of crime. As Fat Bastard would say, ITS CRAAAAP!! Here is my recollection of a sample of the book;
He looked down at his double tassled Armani loafers, tied in their neo-classical twist knot, reflecting the shine of his Dolce Gabbana suede coat. The Falluci tie, with its crisp imprints of ducks in a pond lay nicely against the starched Brooks Brothers white shirt. He walked slowly, adjusting his horn-rimmed RayBan frames. Then, he slashed the bum relentlessly. Over and over he cut, grinding bone against knife. Then, he finished. Walking on, he slid the knife into the interior pocket of his double cuffed tweed Marks and Woolham slacks.
------------------
Let's just say that my version is WAY more entertaining than the actual book. Maybe you'd like the book if you're a product manager for a men's clothing store and you enjoy reading catalogs with no pictures. Page after page of idiotic descriptions of clothes and rich people. Of course, Bret Easton Ellis had this remarkably original idea to intersperse scenes of random violence into page after page of mundane triviality. Oooooh, what a genius.... -
Well, I can't say I'm surprised in the least that this is a bad film. If anyone here has tried to read the book you're probably not shocked. This is the ONLY book I have ever returned in my entire life because I felt offended that I had purchased. It was the worst written, most inane piece of dribble I have ever read. Probably like many people here I heard about the book from all its notoriety in the media. Well, let me clear something up for you. It's not some kind of scandalous, gore-filled, post Hannibal Lecter tale of crime. As Fat Bastard would say, ITS CRAAAAP!! Here is my recollection of a sample of the book;
He looked down at his double tassled Armani loafers, tied in their neo-classical twist knot, reflecting the shine of his Dolce Gabbana suede coat. The Falluci tie, with its crisp imprints of ducks in a pond lay nicely against the starched Brooks Brothers white shirt. He walked slowly, adjusting his horn-rimmed RayBan frames. Then, he slashed the bum relentlessly. Over and over he cut, grinding bone against knife. Then, he finished. Walking on, he slid the knife into the interior pocket of his double cuffed tweed Marks and Woolham slacks.
------------------
Let's just say that my version is WAY more entertaining than the actual book. Maybe you'd like the book if you're a product manager for a men's clothing store and you enjoy reading catalogs with no pictures. Page after page of idiotic descriptions of clothes and rich people. Of course, Bret Easton Ellis had this remarkably original idea to intersperse scenes of random violence into page after page of mundane triviality. Oooooh, what a genius.... -
THE BOOK WAS EXCELLENT! ALL OF THE SO-CALLED "TARRENTINO" DIALAGUE WAS IN THE BOOK BEFORE TARRANTINO BECAME THIS BULL-SHIT ICON OF THE 90'S FILM WORLD. GRANTED, I HAVE NOT SEEN THE FILM YET BUT IN THE BOOK THE "TARRENTINOIAN DIALAGUE" WAS USED TO PROVIDE THE READER WITH A SENSE OF HOW PATRICK BATEMAN WAS DRIVEN BY VANIETY, BEFORE MURDER.
-
Let's see. . . we've got Harry, on a cruise, seeing a screening and, what have we here, a negative review. Hey, maybe he can't be bought. Maybe he really just loves movies and something has to be especially bad for him to write a negative review. Now will everybody please just shut the fuck up next time Harry likes something that you don't!? My god. I'm so sick of these posts detailing all of the stuff Harry gets and how he's just a shill for Hollywood. Please tell me that it's over now.
-
Jack valenti and the whole MPAA needs to quit and let young blood take over. Not everything is done, "The Missionary" way anymore... I heard Clinton could take over his job, you know he knows what the difference is between Doggy and Anal is.
-
Anyhow, the movie will be released unrated in Canada. Woo Hoo! You get to see Christian Bale admire his rippling muscles in a mirror in a three way romp. Funny how the ratings board allows all the violence, but gets squeamish on the sex. As Shelley Winters once said: "Show a man kissing a woman's breast, you get an 'X.' Show him cutting it off, you get an 'R.'" **** On a related note, the lawyer representing the families of the victims in the Paducah (sp?) school shootings says he will sue Lion's Gate films if a minor gets in to see 'AP' and then commits a crime inspired by the movie. First video games, now movies? What's next, Mister Lawyer man? The Devil's Music? Comic Books? The Demon Weed?
-
Sailing around the world with Ebert must have rubbed off on him. Now maybe every movie won't be such a life-altering event.
-
Never read the book but im definitely curious. will check it out....hmmm, detect some animosity towards americans in this forum....hmmmm....
-
what happens to a lil psychotic, growning up listening to: iron maiden/black sabbath/deep purple/the doors/led zeppelin/van halen(roth & hagar only please)/motorhead/saxon/bad company? well let's just say that hacking into a server containing a supposed list of oscar nominations is a possibility. by the way i hope that gen y skank reese witherspoon gets hacked to death in this film...her gen y types make one menstral. this will be my last post until i get home from work at 2a.m(est florida time). celebrate by calling 1.800.collect and give them death threats to david arquette. those commercials suck since david spade/chris rock stopped doing them!
-
I understood AMERICAN PSYCHO just fine thank you. I understood that it was a totally mediocre attempt at satire by an overrated hipster hack. Brett Easton Ellis was one of several young writers who came along in the eighties and were championed by critics who mistook their bland, often nihlistic, prose for a new, authentic satirical voice.
For this kind of savage satire to work there must be an underlying humanist outrage. In Ellis, all I ever felt was the authors own all-encompassing narcissism. AMERICAN PSYCHO is one of the most repulsively self- satisfied books ever written. You can picture Ellis slapping himself on the back for how daring and transgressive he's being. The best thing that can be said about AMERICAN PSYCHO (the novel) is that it is better then Ellis' first novel, the even more excerable LESS THAN ZERO. As for the movie, who knows? It may be an improvement on the book. It could hardly be worse. -
I read that Lion Gate Films has put out 2 versions of the film:
1) American version: prostitute scene cut out to avoid NC17 rating- hence R rating.
2) Un-cut version for Canada.
anyone confirm this? -
Several of you obviously did not read my message correctly.
MICKEY FINN, I wrote this email because the director of this movie kept stating how she wanted to make American Psycho a statement on the "Materialism of the 80's", and "The greed decade" (read Premiere magazine), so this comment is directly related to a movie. I was simply stating that I don't believe there ever was a greed decade, and if you watch any liberal nightly newscast, any story or mention of the 80's is tagged with the moniker of "The decade of Greed", or "the greedy Reagan years". I can't stand that. The truth is that there are just as many "greedy" people now as there were in the 80's. And to attach Reagan's name to it is simply ignorant (to use a well-loved liberal word). No president has anything to do with the economy. Anyone who thinks that is kidding themselves. The economy is run by a vast network of capitalism that the president has nothing to do with. It's funny how the same liberals who call the 80's a greed decade, don't stop to label this one "the greediest decade". After all, don't they claim that Clinton is responsible for the most prosperous and wealthy
era in American history? Anyone who thinks the President is responsible for the wealth of a Nation knows NOTHING. That goes for Democratic and Republican presidents.
Also, ELGIN, I use the term liberal left because I am tired of hearing my republican friends referred to as the "religious right". It is so commonplace now that every mention of the "right" is preceded by the word "religious". If you can (GAG) get yourself to watch the nightly news or read a newspaper, you will see what I mean.
And HAPPYDUDE, I understand that labels are an illusion, but they are essential. Do you go disagree with being labeled a Caucasian? Do you disagree with being labeled a student? I could go on and on. What's wrong with labels? You smoke way too much pot.
-
Several of you obviously did not read my message correctly.
MICKEY FINN, I wrote this email because the director of this movie kept stating how she wanted to make American Psycho a statement on the "Materialism of the 80's", and "The greed decade" (read Premiere magazine), so this comment is directly related to a movie. I was simply stating that I don't believe there ever was a greed decade, and if you watch any liberal nightly newscast, any story or mention of the 80's is tagged with the moniker of "The decade of Greed", or "the greedy Reagan years". I can't stand that. The truth is that there are just as many "greedy" people now as there were in the 80's. And to attach Reagan's name to it is simply ignorant (to use a well-loved liberal word). No president has anything to do with the economy. Anyone who thinks that is kidding themselves. The economy is run by a vast network of capitalism that the president has nothing to do with. It's funny how the same liberals who call the 80's a greed decade, don't stop to label this one "the greediest decade". After all, don't they claim that Clinton is responsible for the most prosperous and wealthy
era in American history? Anyone who thinks the President is responsible for the wealth of a Nation knows NOTHING. That goes for Democratic and Republican presidents.
Also, ELGIN, I use the term liberal left because I am tired of hearing my republican friends referred to as the "religious right". It is so commonplace now that every mention of the "right" is preceded by the word "religious". If you can (GAG) get yourself to watch the nightly news or read a newspaper, you will see what I mean.
And HAPPYDUDE, labels are an illusion? What kind of hippy crap is that? Labels are essential. Do you go disagree with being labeled a Caucasian? Do you disagree with being labeled a student? I could go on and on. What's wrong with labels? You smoke way too much pot.
-
Several of you obviously did not read my message correctly.
First of all ELGIN, I am totally against labeling anything, so I don't know where you drew that conclusion from. And MICKEY FINN, I wrote this email because the director of this movie kept stating how she wanted to make American Psycho a statement on the "Materialism of the 80's", and "The greed decade" (read Premiere magazine), so this comment is directly related to a movie. I was simply stating that I don't believe there ever was a greed decade, and if you watch any liberal nightly newscast, any story or mention of the 80's is tagged with the moniker of "The decade of Greed", or "the greedy Reagan years". I can't stand that. The truth is that there are just as many "greedy" people now as there were in the 80's. And to attach Reagan's name to it is simply ignorant (to use a well-loved liberal word). No president has anything to do with the economy. Anyone who thinks that is kidding themselves. The economy is run by a vast network of capitalism that the president has nothing to do with.
What I don't understand is how the liberals who call the 80's the "Greed decade" and "The greedy Reagan Years" are the same ones who name the 90's and the Clinton years as the "most wealthy and prosperous peace time decade in our country's history". Wouldn't that make his administration the "Greedy Clinton Years", or the "Greedy 90s"?
Also, I use the term liberal left because I am tired of hearing my republican friends referred to as the religious right. It is so commonplace now that every mention of the right is preceded by the word religious. If you can (GAG) get yourself to watch the nightly news or read a newspaper, you will see what I mean.
And HAPPYDUDE, you say labels are an illusion? What kind of hippie crap is that? Labels are essential. If you think that, than
why do we need names? Let's just take labels and names off everything. Let's stop naming our kids. Let's stop naming the
decades and years, and heck, even the days! After all, according to you, labels are just an illusion. We don't need them.
What a boatload of crap.
-
It works this way - there's this book/movie and we put out the story that the publisher won't publish the shocking book/the film is going to get slapped with the ol' NC-17. Then, we get another publisher/trim 30 seconds of film and get the stuff out anyway. We make more money than we might have otherwise due to the notoriety/free publicity. In the far less materialistic age that has now dawned, we can even release the "directors cut" on video and having caught the suckers at the bookstore catch'em again at the moviehouse and then again right in their own livingrooms. Get it.
-
I for one cant wait for a couple more years to go by and then all the youth of the nineties look at the pants theyve been wearing and realize as bizarre as the sixties were, as corny as the seventies were, as excessive as the eighties were, NOTHING, and i mean nothing can top the hilarity of seeing the baseball hat squads walk down the street with their fucking pants falling down. nothing can top a skinny 15 yr old in pants that wouldnt fit fucking king kong bundy. its been fun watching the sheep cling to a trend that makes them look like complete fools. congradulations earth, the flock of sheep is bigger then its ever been, so watch and love armageddon, turn on your pop radio, put on your pants and fall flat on your face and god bless a movie that fucking kills people to cheesy eighties music.
-
I have no idea why that posted 3 times. Wierd.
-
I for one cant wait for a couple more years to go by and then all the youth of the nineties look at the pants theyve been wearing and realize as bizarre as the sixties were, as corny as the seventies were, as excessive as the eighties were, NOTHING, and i mean nothing can top the hilarity of seeing the baseball hat squads walk down the street with their fucking pants falling down. nothing can top a skinny 15 yr old in pants that wouldnt fit fucking king kong bundy. its been fun watching the sheep cling to a trend that makes them look like complete fools. congradulations earth, the flock of sheep is bigger then its ever been, so watch and love armageddon, turn on your pop radio,put your hat on sideways, put on your pants and fall flat on your face and god bless a movie that fucking kills people to cheesy eighties music.
-
There seems to be a lot of misconceptions on this board. First of all, Grayson, this would most certainly not put to rest opinions that Harry is a shill for Hollywood, a controversial, unpopular (before it's release, no less) film with an NC-17 rating, made by an independant film company with a relatively low budget by a Hollywood outsider for a director. Yeah, that'll piss the big Hollywood machine off that he slagged it. Mind you, I don't thoroughly subscribe to these bash Harry rants, but this certainly won't put an end to them. As far as this film goes, we must all realize that it treads on thin ice. As with A Clockwork Orange and Fight Club (neither of which I'm comparing it to, so don't get upset) there will be in this the obvious danger that if viewed sufficiently mindlesssly one could get the entirely wrong message from it. Such is life, and we know we can't reduce our art to lowest common denominator intellectual levels. As far as those who have read the book and see it as a gorification of violence/materialism need to glance again at the opening line "Abandon All Hope Ye Who Enter Here" - the very same message Dante receives when descending into hell (Divinus Comedius/Inferno). This is no less than a warning that we are about to enter the most basist level of civilization, a hell on earth (to succumb to cliche). If this doesn't alert your mind to the fact that this is a satire look harder, it's all around you. Mickey Finn, although that was a marvelous little dissertation on altering financial markets in the 80's, that's not at all what the "greed is good" 80's debate is about for this book. Materialism has not ceased, greed has not declined (look at last weeks fashion show - fur everywhere - greed is good masquerading with a new tagline - luxury), but in that era greed was something to be proud of, Patrick doesn't just want the best stereo, he wants the most expensive one (read: guy tells Bateman about the sound quality - Bateman replies that that's irrelevant, it's not top of the line). There has always been enormous debate as to whether the killings are fictional or not, personally I doubt it, for a myriad of reasons which I shan't go into. However, assuming that because Bateman says horrible things to people and they don't acknowledge them is certainly not a show that he's not saying them, it's a none to subtle poke at the self-involvement of everyone around him. Also, if the killings were imaginary the police chase would have been out of place, and it is quite important to Ellis' subtext (suffice to say it's an answer to all those who thought that this vapid materialism was out with the 80's). And the final line (This Is Not An Exit) represents our inability to escape this (non) ideology. A final point, to those who love the book - please don't be so obnoxious as to tell those who don't like it that they don't get it, that's absurb - perhaps they just don't like it, it's not indicative of their intellectual capabilities in the slightest. And Glamorama is a marvelous novel (don't complain of the obviously - and intentionally - clicheed thriller plot. This is one more time where BEE tries to explain to us that something is wrong with a world where Prada shoes are more valued than a soul.) And just a warning to those who fear more film adaptions of Ellis' work, Roger Avary (of Killing Zoe fame) is currently adapting The Rules Of Attraction, and intends to direct it himself.
-
There seems to be a lot of misconceptions on this board. First of all, Grayson, this would most certainly not put to rest opinions that Harry is a shill for Hollywood, a controversial, unpopular (before it's release, no less) film with an NC-17 rating, made by an independant film company with a relatively low budget by a Hollywood outsider for a director. Yeah, that'll piss the big Hollywood machine off that he slagged it. Mind you, I don't thoroughly subscribe to these bash Harry rants, but this certainly won't put an end to them. As far as this film goes, we must all realize that it treads on thin ice. As with A Clockwork Orange and Fight Club (neither of which I'm comparing it to, so don't get upset) there will be in this the obvious danger that if viewed sufficiently mindlesssly one could get the entirely wrong message from it. Such is life, and we know we can't reduce our art to lowest common denominator intellectual levels. As far as those who have read the book and see it as a gorification of violence/materialism need to glance again at the opening line "Abandon All Hope Ye Who Enter Here" - the very same message Dante receives when descending into hell (Divinus Comedius/Inferno). This is no less than a warning that we are about to enter the most basist level of civilization, a hell on earth (to succumb to cliche). If this doesn't alert your mind to the fact that this is a satire look harder, it's all around you. Mickey Finn, although that was a marvelous little dissertation on altering financial markets in the 80's, that's not at all what the "greed is good" 80's debate is about for this book. Materialism has not ceased, greed has not declined (look at last weeks fashion show - fur everywhere - greed is good masquerading with a new tagline - luxury), but in that era greed was something to be proud of, Patrick doesn't just want the best stereo, he wants the most expensive one (read: guy tells Bateman about the sound quality - Bateman replies that that's irrelevant, it's not top of the line). There has always been enormous debate as to whether the killings are fictional or not, personally I doubt it, for a myriad of reasons which I shan't go into. However, assuming that because Bateman says horrible things to people and they don't acknowledge them is certainly not a show that he's not saying them, it's a none to subtle poke at the self-involvement of everyone around him. Also, if the killings were imaginary the police chase would have been out of place, and it is quite important to Ellis' subtext (suffice to say it's an answer to all those who thought that this vapid materialism was out with the 80's). And the final line (This Is Not An Exit) represents our inability to escape this (non) ideology. A final point, to those who love the book - please don't be so obnoxious as to tell those who don't like it that they don't get it, that's absurb - perhaps they just don't like it, it's not indicative of their intellectual capabilities in the slightest. And Glamorama is a marvelous novel (don't complain of the obviously - and intentionally - clicheed thriller plot. This is one more time where BEE tries to explain to us that something is wrong with a world where Prada shoes are more valued than a soul.) And just a warning to those who fear more film adaptions of Ellis' work, Roger Avary (of Killing Zoe fame) is currently adapting The Rules Of Attraction, and intends to direct it himself.
-
First of all, you have to be old enough to remember ALL of the Eighties and not spend training-pants years for part of them. Then take a step back and look at all that was going on culturally in the world. All that the film depicts is that America seemed to be some coked-out, f*cked up, emotionally detached, denial driven, etc. "good looking whore" that's worried more about the image than "what was on the inside." Look back at those years again and you'll see that Brett was only writing about some of the obvious things that he saw around him. That's what made it so funny... it was ludicrous and horrible at the same time. Sort of like looking at a gruesome car wreck as you drive by it, or even on your TV or VCR. As far as the performances, I'm sure that there were tons of people that put plenty of puppies to sleep. Ooops, I meant that there were plenty of people put to sleep by yuppies and their endless talk of "me, me, me, me, blah, blah, blah, blah." And Harry, sorry that you had to float along and watch something I doubt you'd be able to "get" anyways. No offense, just an opinion.
-
Feb 18, 2000 5:49:27 PM CST
hey, um, Tides...you are wrong about the ending of the book, and
by eric draven
You said about how Bateman killed Paul Owen in his own apartment, then later he was spotted in London.....
reads the book again...after Bateman killed Owen, Bateman packed some of Owens clothes, recorded an OUTGOING message on Owens machine (thier voices are sinilar), threw out the clothes.
The shrink Bateman was talking to at the end who said "I has lunch with Owen last week in London" OBVIOUSLY mistook Owen for someone else....just like everyone in the book does....
if you remember, when Bateman goes up to the shrink, the shrink starts the conversation off by calling Bateman "Davis" and then Bateman sais "that was me who left the message on your machine saying i killed Owen and lots of people"...the shrink sais "Jesus, that was you, Davis?..thats funny...like Bateman would ever do that"..he doesnt even realize he is TALKING to Bateman...then ends the conversation saying "lets do lunch sometime, Donaldson"...see?????
Bateman WAS a killer.....iut WASENT in his head.....
read the book gain.
And to everyone who says in this day and time we are still as obsessed with brand names and stuff.....i still think it was worse in the "yuppie" era....
-
I read the book last summer. I found it to be a very entertaing/disturbing piece of work. I didn't bother analyzing it like all of you, but I might read through it again to pull the same messages and symbolisms as you folks did.
I did happen to catch the film at Sundance this year however. The audience reaction was poor at best, which seemed to take some of my enthusiasm away from it. I thought it was a good film. Not a great film. You could certainly analyze it to all hell, and end up hating it. But I think just a filmgoer who is looking for something not mainstream and something very different, will enjoy it. I give it *** stars. -
I read the book last summer. I found it to be a very entertaing/disturbing piece of work. I didn't bother analyzing it like all of you, but I might read through it again to pull the same messages and symbolisms as you folks did.
I did happen to catch the film at Sundance this year however. The audience reaction was poor at best, which seemed to take some of my enthusiasm away from it. I thought it was a good film. Not a great film. You could certainly analyze it to all hell, and end up hating it. But I think just a filmgoer who is looking for something not mainstream and something very different, will enjoy it. I give it *** stars. -
You heard it here first, during one of the Sundance Talkbacks last month. I wrote a review(for AICN) for this film back in September, but Harry never posted it. I then sent the review to Dark Horizons and they ran it for about a week or two, then it disappeared. Anyway Harry pretty much said the same thing I did, but left out a few things:1) With the exception of Willem Dafoe, the acting was terrible across the board. 2)The cut that I saw had a vagina shot(from behind during the sex scene). I think that shot was the reason the film got slapped with an NC-17. 3) The story is supposed to take place in NYC, but it looks an awful lot like Canada.
I do agree that the dialogue is terrible. One scene between Chloe Sevigny (in the worst performance of her career)and Christian Bale sticks out in my mind. Sevigny is Bale's secretary, and is over at his place. They've been kinda flirting. Bale is thinking about killing her. I'm paraphrasingof course; Bale-"You better go. I don't want you to get hurt." Sevigny-"You're right. I don't want to get bruised."
Hardy-fuckin-har. -
That title is enough for me to go see that movie, and the trailer, well it only helped me want to see this. And I remember being totally freaked out with the hype about the book. And Christian Bale IS cool, so well, screw you, I'm seeing this film. I'm SICK of movie reviews. But I still come back and read them, oh well...
-
I don't know what's more alarming, your frequent use of tired
liberal cliches, or the fact that you got suckered into believing
what you wrote. I was not in grade school in the 80's Mr. Tarkington, I am 31 years old.
I can remember reading a little known article about Ronald Reagan sorting through his piles of letters, and placing checks from his own bank account into the ones that asked for help financially within a reasonable manner. The act of a heartless, greedy, non-compassionate President? I don't think so.
I have heard all of those cliches before, but the truth is if you
really think that the world is a better place today, that Mr. Clinton has "spread the wealth", and that the gap between rich and poor has lessened, then you have some serious research to do.
Good luck. -
Harry,
You are great, but you really, really, blew the review of American Psycho.
The movie not only rocks, it is in my admittedly biased opinion a brilliant and clever satire on the 80's generation of greed (Please see the great reviews and write-ups on Dark Horizons, Box-Office Magazine, Village Voice, Entertainment Weekly, etc.).
Much like our film from last fall DOGMA, AMERICAN PSYCHO is easily the hippest, edgiest and best time at the movies of any film this season.
I sincerely hope you give it another chance and take a peek again when the flick comes out in theatres this April.
All the best,
-Tom Ortenberg -
The review of "American Psycho" causes me to raise two points - both of which would be patently obvious if Harry had read the book.
The so-called "inane" dialogue during certain scenes is rampant in the book - there is talk of all things 80's, including music, and the protagonist's obsession with designer labels, chi-chi restaurants, and fanatical consumerism. So of course this dialogue would be contained in the movie. Duh!!
And the "did it really happen or not" angle was in the book as well.
These two plot elements were not concocted by the director, Mary Harron, but were in Bret Easton Ellis' book.
Sheesh, get it right, why dontcha?? -
..but, your other criticisms sound legit.
-
...please?
-
Telling Harry to read the book to like the movie better is not the way to make the movie better. Most people do not read the books movies are based on. Usually, the book is ten times better than the movie because it has more time to express the themes, characters, etc. When you watch a movie, all you have is your own interpretation of another man/woman's vision. Books are a little more flexible to interpret than movies because they are not visual. Anyways...it just isn't right to say "read the book" in order to like a movie. A movie should be able to stand on its own. (And so should a book, for that matter.)
-
...Harry is criticizing alleged FLAWS in the film's story and structure which are ACTUALLY the whole point of the novel. So technically he should not blame the director for making a movie that carries out the intent of the source material.
-
I disliked this book not because I was shocked or, god forbid, offended. I disliked it because I was bored. What is a neat literary trick at first -- the neverending discussion of what everyone's wearing, where they're going to eat, what they're going to order, etc. -- becomes tiresome very quickly. It's so overdone, I wonder if anyone had a crack at editing this thing. I can imagine those people who don't like violence in books praying for a massacre just to put an end to the narrative babbling.
-
Amy, "hippie" is also a label and consequently, an illusion. Your rules are your own and they are holding you back, my friend. And since you're going to assume ludicrous stereotypes about my character based on a statement I made that in the rest of the world wouldn't sound "hippie" at all, I'm going to do the same. I'll figure, on the basis of your use of "liberal left" that your an ultraconservative that immersed yourself in the fraternity experience at college. I'll assume you listen to a lot of Lynard Skynard records. I'll assume you come from a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant background and are afraid of and hate everything that falls outside of that label's parameters. I'll assume you thought you heard "the truth" from G. Gordon Liddy and that Nixon did more good for the country than harm to it. From the way you write, I'll also assume your a man and call yourself "Amy" here because of all the confusing homoerotic feelings that erupt everytime you see Brad Pitt. I'll assume you don't smoke pot, but man-oh-man do you love your Budweiser. Hang in there, L'il Buddy. You'll win one of these days.
-
I've never posted before, but the overwhelming stupidity of some previous posters astounded me to no end. One cannot believe in the myth of Ronald Reagan's prosperity while simoultaneously supporting Fight Club. Fight Club was a blatant attack on American consumerism- which as many conservatives have pointed out, began with Republicans Bush and Reagan. Pick one or the other.
-
Okay, I'm getting sick and tired of these annoying movie critics who seem to have forgotten that the movie is not the same as the book. American Psycho is one of those books that could never have every aspect put on film. An intelligent critic would take the time to READ THE BOOK before dismissing the film so eagerly. Especially since the book itself was so controversial. At least be able to say whether or not it was a good representation of the novel. The public can only assume that critics speak the truth about a film. Without the correct background information it's irresponsible to say anything but "I have not read the book, but here's what I thought of the movie its self"...
-
american psycho, the book or movie wasn't that bad. what makes me sick are a good deal of the people who wrote about american psycho, including harry. you are all sooo opinionated and intolerant! really, who died to make each of you rulers of the world??!?! i mean, everyone is entitled to like or not like a movie, and the aspects, whether the humor, the amount of gore, the amount of sex, the performances by the actors, the directing, and so on,but do you have any idea how foolish it makes you sound when you blindly and ignorantly bash things? especially the remark about christian bale! to say that you don't like him because you THINK he's trying to look in photographs??!! then go and talk about fonzie and how uncool it is to try to be cool?!?! how do you know that christian is trying to look cool? you can state that you don't like his work, but those remarks were just ridiculous! some one else talked about mary harron being a nutjob, someone else about them pussying out as far as being graphic, and for these as well as many other posts, i just have to say: stop and think... how do you know?
-
Ha! Face it: Sundance is McDonalds for movies! I wouldn't trust the opinion of anyone who attends that Hollywood jerkoff fest. They lost their credibility years ago.
-
This is, hands down, a terribly flawed movie. Regardless of what you may or may not think of Ellis' source material, one must acknowledge the simple fact that Mary Harron, Lion's Gate, Ed Pressman, et al have created a sub-standard, embarrassing dissapointment of a film. Forget about the book; it's a completely separate issue. (Certainly the astute visitors of AICN don't need me to point out to them that any movie -- or other creative endeavor -- must be evaluated soley on its own artistic merits regardless of the strength/weakness of whatever original source material may have been used in its creation. It is sheer lunacy to think that people should -- or even would -- read the book in order to better understand the movie. The world simply doesn't work that way, folks. People who want to read a book, will read it; people who want to see a movie, will see it. End of story. In a perfect world the original book and the subsequent movie adaptation will *complement* each other in new and illuminating ways -- but under no circumstances should an audience feel that reading the book is a necessary, integral part of the overall viewing experience. Look up the word "adapt" in Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary if you are still confused.) To properly evaulate "American Psycho" we must focus our attention on several "key" issues, namely: did Mary Harron do a good job in telling an interesting and involving story? Did Christian Bale succeed in portraying Patrick Bateman? Overall, is this movie "watchable"? Do we learn anything from it? Is it in any way entertaining? (Argue if you wish, but above all *movies* need to entertain/captivate us -- yes, even the small little indie-art house movies. The first rule of movie-making? "Thou shalt not bore the audience!") Is it a well-made movie (from a purely technical point of view)?
Unfortunately the answer to all of these questions is: NO. Absoltuely not. Mary Harron completely missed the boat, so to speak. There is no clear-cut point of view at work here -- the satire lacks any bite, the script wanders aimlessly, the humor severely washed out and diluted by relativey limp performances from the entire cast. (Chloe Sevigny perhaps being the sole exception in this utterly forgettable fiasco.) Christian Bale -- a generally sturdy, talented actor -- doesn't cut the mustard here. I didn't for one minute believe any of his performance... a word of advice to Mr. Bale: stick to the Julian Barnes adaptations. Metroland was far better suited to your talents... save your career while you still have one.
The sets, the lighting... even the editing -- the entire movie has a cheap, anemic feel to it that many will find asethetically disagreeable. Virtually no money was spent on this film -- and it shows in *every* frame. The producers (namely Edward R. Pressman) obviously lacked the courage and vision necessary to stake a big budget on this project... apparently they (foolishly) decided to "play it safe" figuring that they could more easily recoup a smaller budget through videotape sales and what is going to be a predictably *very* short theatrical run. Like anything else in life: you get what you pay for... and in this case it obviously didn't amount to very much. Perhaps Mr. Pressman needed to conserve his resources to finance the brilliant (and hotly anticipated) Crow 3... which is pure specualtion on my part, but don't be fooled into thinking that this movie is anything more than a feeble attempt to make money without spending it. (And anyone who knows anything about business knows... that just ain't gonna happen. And please don't try to get cute and bring up "The Blair Witch Project" -- that was a fluke, a complete happy accident. If a studio would have set out to actually make that movie -- with that same budget -- it would have blown up in their smug, penny-piching faces. Artisan: take note -- your planned prequels don't even look good on paper.)
Is "American Psycho" ultimately a compelling character study? Does it shed new light on the human condition? Are we, as an audience, rewarded in any way for sitting through it? Again, sadly -- no. (We can, however, all be grateful that it is mercifully short; just a little bit over an hour and a half -- comparatively short for a feature film in this day and age of "Titanics" and "Magnolias".)
As far as Harry's review is concerned: he's right on the money. He hasn't read the book -- and, as I've stated before, he shouldn't *have* to. It's just a bad movie. Plain and simple. Better luck next time, folks.
A note to those who will try to defend this film: I'm just as sorry as you are that things turned out so poorly. Nothing disappoints me more... posting this message has brought me no joy, but... it's time to acknowledge reality: the worst *has* happened.
Ed Pressman, Mary Harron, Christian Solomon, Jeffery Sackman, Mike Pasonorek, cast and crew... you should be collectively embarrassed and ashamed of yourselves. I do not recommend putting this movie on any of your resumes. Perhaps in time all will be forgiven -- and, if you're lucky, forgotten.
For the rest of you: buy the book.
-
To see all of you discussing the 80's. I wonder how many of you were actually in diapers watching Seasame Street? The closest you got to the eighties is a text book.
And Micky, dude you are so full of it...nice way of using a theasaurs to sound intellectuall,,,keep trying. -
With all due respect, Harry clearly hasn't read the novel of 'American Psycho' - the elements he reviles in this film are ones inherent in the book. He clearly misses Easton Ellis's whole ethos, which I suppose is fair enough because lots of people did too when it was release, but what I do object to seriously is his damning attitude towards something which might just possibly be too sophisticated for his appreciation. If you don't get something, do you just reject it as a failure, as a waste of resources, as he so Philistinely does? It's a very egotistical reaction...it's the reaction that says films can be fallible but I can't. How can you grow with that attitude? It may be a heinous waste in your eyes, Harry, but remember you're not God yet, you're just one person, and - although I haven't seen the picture yet - I applaud everything Mary Harron has said about this picture and how she's gone about presenting a radically ingenious and sophisticated attack on capitalist savagery. The fact you don't understand the point of the pop song, Harry, would highlight that this is moving beyond your perspective. I would have thought you'd have the dignity to realise that perhaps somethings are too complex for you to grasp. I feel this about films I see, certainly, like Happiness or Ratcatcher. Why can't you? As others have said here, the kind of reaction you've exhibited here is very crass.
-
hey big guy. ummm, american psycho was written WELL before buddy quentin decided to recycle some pop lingo into his sparse filmography. try reading the book... (it's good) probably better than the movie...
-
fight club meets american beauty meets boiler room makes a shitty film
-
Feb 24, 2000 10:06:53 AM CST
It doesn't matter if this film is terrible - it may well be - bu
by mooch
I agree with Whoeverthefuck, it is lame to say that the audience should read the book in order to appreciate the film properly. Part of the point of adapting a book (for serious film-makers like Harron) is to convert the ethos into a different medium. Separate medium. But the issue here is of how to review a film, maybe even of the responsibility (or lack of) a film-maker has to the audience. What is the point of making a film? Is it to entertain? No, for a serious film-maker, entertaining the audience is is part of the art of making films well, but not the reason for making a particular one. Harry's review focused solely on measuring American Psycho against movies from an entirely different point in the spectrum of cinema, purely on thrill terms. But a film must be viewed for the whole package, and Harry has not considered the whole package in regarding this film. How do I know what Harry has and has not considered? Fine, if it isn't a flaw in his perspective, it is simply flawed writing - I'm not talking about his trademark style, I mean that he doesn't address the relevant issues in this review. The big nugget here is how a widely-read site should approach reviewing a film which will not be of mass-appeal. A lot of people will not like this film because they are not interested in cinema being used for the aims Mary Harron has - which is fine, great, whatever, but Harry as a reviewer broadcasting his reviews with the official stamp of AICN (such an important industry and fan source) must strive to find the worth in a film. If he wants to write as an audience member then he should stick to reviewing entertainment driven fare and pass on responsibility for reviewing films that attempt to enlighten to another critic who can better represent people who will get something out of American Psycho and their like. As a reviewer one must look for what is good in a movie, what it succeeds in doing, and then evaluate the relative worth of this success and pointing out ways in which the film could have been better. The important part Harry is missing here in this review is the looking for the worth (unless you count the unexplained line about this film "trying to con you" into believing it has things to say). The fundamental point is that a private audience member judges a film on his / her own terms, but a critic must judge it on the film's terms, and then evaluate the worth of those terms and assess where that the leaves the piece in the context of the film watching public.
-
I was going to ask if Harry read the book, but others have already brought that up. I just finished reading the book this week (took me 3 days to tear through it), and I'm anticipating seeing the movie now. I'm the type that doesn't listen to critics regardless of what they say about a movie and prefer to make up their minds after the fact, but judging from Harry's review, it sounds like it's a good thing I read the book ahead of time -- although I honestly think I will probably like the movie, box office wise I think having to read the book before seeing the movie so you can understand certain plot points is going to be the movie's downfall (like why he is talking about Whitney Houston and Huey Lewis and the News). No one is going to want to read through graphic sex and violence just so they can watch a movie. Honestly, I think the lack of real violence will probably draw a lot of people to go see it, too (me included). Do you honestly want to watch a rat actually enter a woman through her genitals to eat her from inside in a movie????? Concentrating on the 80s materialism instead of the killings was probably a wise choice on their parts....the movie theaters will have enough to deal with when they see protesters outside the theater.
-
Brett Easton Ellis is great in depicting a certain kind of sustained panic, kind of like a drug. I like to compare it to a good rave, it's long, confusing, introspective at times, euphoric at times, and you don't know where it's going or where you are, or who these people are. It can get boring and tedious, but then it's so damn cool. Enough ranting, they should make a movie of Glamorama ( terrorist models who do tons of coke and Zanax would make a great movie). I shouldn't say that being on probation.
-
Well...first of all...a big hello to all you movie disecters out there. American Psycho IS a satire...Natural Born Killers IS a satire...but on two totally different aspects of society.
NBK seems to be commenting on our appetite for some sensational murderer(s)...whereas Psycho comment on the 80s commercialism...hence Batemans rantings of designer clothes and the "relevance" of crappy pop stars. Sheesh...:) -
I hope you guys read over your comments and realize how pathetic and lame you come across to the rest of us.
-
Oh my god, you're right! What was I thinking. Your use of that name is an affront to pot smokers everywhere.
-
I didn't know they were talking about making Tom Robbins' book, "Still Life With Woodpecker," into a movie!! That really pisses me off!!! He's my most favorite author in the entire world, but, I'm afraid of this!!! I mean, did anyone watch "Even Cowgirls Get the Blues?" The book was amazing! The movie sucked my ass!!! His books are just too well written to be made into films...I mean, his stories are so weird and sometimes complex, that in order to make a film of one of his books, you'd have to make the movie last for about 5 or 6 hours...and, we all know that no one would go for that. PLEASE!!! Leave Tom Robbins' books alone! For the love of humanity! Oh, just for the record, though...if they ever decided to make "Skinny Legs and All" into a movie, I would have to play Ellen Cherry Charles...LOL...j/k. Smiles to all!!
-
Okay, I have seen this film, but I have NOT seen THIS film. Why doesn't Hollywood realize that they are battering old blandness into oblivion? Serail Killers movies are so passe' that I forgot what passe' meant until now. Well, at least Leo Dicrapio didn't do it. His acting on the Beach was enough gore for me.
Love, always,
Marty -
yo this might not be like a movie but it comes close, check out
http://www.geocities.com/rock_sand123/index.html -
Lions Gate Films (which produced "American Psycho") is a studio of travesty. They NEVER make films in association with other studios, they never put copyrights on their films on their posters (so as to not let people see that the film is copyrighted to "(the name of the Lions Gate film) Inc."), they make films that don't make any sense...they are pure trash.
Lions Gate is a curse. I never have, and never will, see a Lions Gate film.
Do your part to bankrupt the Lions Gate studio. Stay away from "American Psycho" at all costs. -
Harry,
Your site carries weight and you know it. The dismissive review you
gave to AP illustrates your inconsistencies when it comes to looking at movies. If you want to leverage your site to a career in the film industry you have every right to do so, but acknowledge the responsibility your site carries and be responsible. The filmakers of AP didn't sit down and say let's make a bad film. Someone put sweat and tears into that project. If AP sucks, so be it, but if you're going to find value in Pitch Black, you owe half a courtesy to AP. I'll be honest your review of PB was the only reason I paid five bucks. I can't help but think twice now about AP. I know you aren't the sole reviewer in the world but your talkbacks are great. To that point, if your lame reviews inspire a great talkback then what's the problem right? I dunno, there's just something really shady about you. I know it's a free country, and you can run your site however you like, but AICN is an institution now and you need balance. Your review
was big let down. -
Hello there.
This is hiphats, webmaster of a movie web site. The gentleman who posted the scathing comments about Lions Gate as "3955" used my E-mail address to get back at the studio.
Whoever this "3955" person is, he used my E-mail address maliciously to make these comments.
As a movie buff, I personally did not make those comments. This "3955" person (whoever he is) obviously capitalized on the scathing reviews so far on "American Psycho" to "get back" at Lions Gate.
As webmaster of a "Superman" movie site, I never make comments like that against movie studios.
With all honesty, I can tell you that Lions Gate is still a young studio with a lot of hope, and can only be sucessful if people support the films Lions Gate produces.
Without Lions Gate, we would not have had "Dogma" or "The Red Violin".
I have forbidden this "3955" person from using my E-mail address again to write to you.
I apologize for "3955" for making those comments. Obviously this person has never seen "American Psycho", much less seen a Lions Gate film.
I wish Lions Gate the best of luck on the new release of "American Psycho".
hips
keeper of SUPERMAN Web Central
http://members.aol.com/hiphats/superman.html -
Okay, where do I begin on this one? First, your writing. What's with all the dots?... Like... this... can... you... not see... that... this is... a little... annoying? Then you use words that simply do not exist: pre-opinion? Not a word. Pre-perception? I believe the word you are after is preconception. Drivil? It's spelt D-R-I-V-E-L, you hick moron. Then there's your comments about the dialogue - while you are perhaps justified in your dislike of what is actually said, your reference to Tarantino shows a disturbing lack of knowledge about the background to this film. If you had any such knowledge, then you would know that American Psycho is a modern classic in literature, that it was written well before Tarantino blew up and that most of the dialogue in the film comes directly from the book. And your comments about the lack of violence - oh, oh, ohmygod, you are such a neanderthal. Can you not see that subtlety is a virtue? Did you feel the same thing about Seven? Again, your lazy approach to film criticism lets you down - if you had done any research on that "Floating Film Festival" instead of doing what you do worst (writing) you would have known that everything seen in American Psycho is from Bateman's point of view. Bateman is, funny enough, a psycho and psychos tend to be unstable and dare I say it, insane people. What you think is happening might not actually be happening. I'd say Mary Harron has triumphed here by making subnormals like you, Harry, miss the point COMPLETELY! Another thing, my sources on the ground and official sources in the film industry tell me that the film is in fact an R rating and that they made a small cut to the scene to which you refer in order to secure such a rating. Again your facts are lacking. I won't go into general things like what did you get in English at school? Or isn't loving children illegal in your state? So riled up do I get by your kind of lazy, incapable journalism that I have probably forgotten to mention a few things but I'd say your site just goes to further show the dangers of the internet - if someone like you can garner respect with shit like this, where will it end?
-
This movie is going to be great on several fronts! It's interestign that Mary is directing this movie, considering that the novel was not recieved well by many feminists groups. Seeing a female interpretation of this novel should be interesting, since I believe besides the materialism, it also revolves around the misogamist (sp?) aspect of the alpha male when they are in a position of power.
-
Okay, first off... I have not seen or read "American Psycho" so I won't be taking shots or anything... besides... I'm seeing it next week and then I can take shots if it's actually bad or make gratitudes if the film is any good. I want to address those defending this film by saying "Read the book". Well, sorry to tell you this, but reading the book won't make the film any better. And if negative elements Harry didn't like in the film are found in book as well, chances are he might not like the book. Additionally, shouldn't this film be equally accessible to those who've read the book as well as those who haven't? I'm sorry to say this, but those of you blaming anyone's negative reviews of "American Psycho" on their inability to pick up the original book are acting like a bunch of elitist swine. Really, listen to yourselves. I've said my piece. Mr. Sartre, over and out and pondering the absurdity of life...
-
One thing: Ironic how you mention that this site shows the dangers of the internet and you 1) are on the internet, 2) are on this site, and 3) are posting on this site like a bourgeois pseudo-elitist and wannabe intellectual. If you don't like the soup, the salad, or the service, then don't come to the restaurant. Think about it, sir. Mr. Sartre, over and out, and pondering one's relation to the other...
-
Harry Knowles is a complete moron. American Psycho has an intelligence to it that no other film dealing with this particular subject matter has ever had. The music trivia commentary during the murder scenes is to show how completely shallow and narcissistic Bateman really is. So, Harry why don't you go back to the video store and rent "Halloween"....or play with your "Star Wars" figures, or try to figure out why girls can't stand to look at you...Just leave the intelligent films for us "Grown Ups"
-
See it in Canada! If you live in Seattle, see it in Vancouver! If you live in Detroit, see it in Windsor! If you live in Buffalo or Rochester, see it in Toronto!
Boycott censored American version! Send a message!
-
Because I'm sure someone will either flame me or agree with me when I say American Psycho was the most fun I've had at the movies so far this year. Although that would usually mean nothing, as rarely as anything of value is ever release before April, in this case it is with relevance to Wonder Boys and Erin Brockovich (two movies I loved, although I can understand why others might not. I don't want to get into it right now. Maybe later). I saw this at a screening at the University of Houston with a bunch of college students, and the laughter in the theater almost drowned out the dialogue in several scenes. It was good laughter, the kind where you can tell the audience is getting and enjoying the film, not the kind where they're laughing at the film by any means. I thought the direction was fantastic, and Harry's gripes are obviously those of one who has not read the book. That's been mentioned above, so I won't elaborate on that. I liked the offscreen filming of the murders, and especially the torturing of the two hookers, because what is not shown is always scarier than what is shown (no special effect can outdo the human imagination in terms of cruelty, fellas). See SEVEN as an example. Anyways, I thought it was a great movie, and I'd recommend it to anyone who is comfortable with feeling evil for a couple of hours.
-
Also just saw this at the University of Houston and I have to totally agree with Vegas above. Sure, the "wink, wink" ending takes some of the edge off it all, but i hadn't laughed that hard since Galaxy Quest and American Beauty. Lame way to wrap up, but a hell of a lot of fun getting there.
-
Expo,
You seem to believe blatant public relations ploys put out by the party public relations guys, yet see opposing views as nothing but propaganda...how sophisticated.
This is the same president that told car manufacturing labor that they should just look at the classifieds to find work, after allowing the corporations they worked for to not only have tax breaks,but actually leave to operate overseas with very, very cheap labor.
First of all, in the 80's working class people no longer could afford decent housing, the banking industry was deregulated by...yes that Saint, Ronald Reagan. Unions were powerless in providing decent wages for skilled labor, which meant people who were in the middle class tax bracket quickly went into the poor bracket, losing their homes and saying good-bye to the possibility of educating their children. Minute class differences became abysses in the lives of most citizens.
Films like "Out of Providence" which are about the seventies, show what a different world we lived in, where people lived by private rules and relationships weren't tainted by bitter, mean notions of status and casts.
There is a difference and was a difference; hearing kids like you spout blatant propaganda as fact, tells us how this difference just keeps growing. -
I too have to agree with Vegas. Although this is not the most fun I've had at the movies this year (that would be Pitch Black, High Fidelity, or Keeping the Faith) I find this to be a damn good movie. I'll admit, I read the script last July and didn't care much for it. It was too damned empty. But when I saw the flick (today), I caught all these subtleties that weren't in the script. There was a whole lot more humor in the movie, and the overdone and violent death scenes described in the script are all off-camera. The audience was great (I saw this in Berkeley, CA...whadya expect) and they were laughing their heads off. Now, I know most people aren't going to read this, but I just have to say, THIS IS A DAMN GOOD MOVIE!
-
Apr 15, 2000 7:54:56 AM CDT
American Psycho is the best film so far this year. (This is ALS
by nordling
MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD!!!!!! Vegas took me to see this last night, after I scored 2 now out of print American Psycho soundtracks with the recently removed Huey Lewis track still on them. I sat down to this movie (and saw the FUCKING INCREDIBLE HOLLOW MAN TRAILER!!!!!!!!) not expecting to get one of the best American satires in recent memory. I was, in short, expecting to hate this movie. Normally, (with the exception of The Haunting and Deep Blue Sea) Harry's reviews are pretty accurate. Not this time. American Psycho was brilliant, and I haven't had this much fun in a movie since Fight Club. Christian Bale, as Patrick Bateman, was terrific. A fake performance? WTF? Bateman was a fake PERSON. Listen to him. He is desprately trying to attach profound meaning to the most soulless shit because he has no choice. The alternative is to admit he only occupies space, and that even barely. Who wants to admit that? We all want to think we're special, that the world wouldn't operate nearly as well if we weren't there. The fact is, Bateman is interchangable with about a thousand other vapid, self-centered people, and he knows it. He kills (if even only in his head) because it's the only time he feels apart, special. I also loved the way the film showed its gore - very disturbing. Harry, if you want in-your-face gore, get thee to Fangoria. This is not that type of film. It is meant to unnerve and put you in the place of sheer evil...and make you like it. Look at Bateman. Who wouldn't want to look like that? When we empathize with him, it makes his separation from humanity even more distant - almost interstellar. Constantly, he tells people his actions, how much a sick fuck he is, and no one gives a shit. He wants someone to care, even in that twisted way. My favorite scene is with Bale and Sevigny (terrific) in his apartment, with Bateman trying to bring himself to kill her, but can't. For once, his conscience wins, and you can see the battle on his face. Now that's fucking acting. I may agree that Willem Defoe was wasted in a part that merely served as plot device, but don't dismiss this film. When you see it, have an open mind. It is brilliant, and has shot to the top of my list for 2000. And I was going to write this year off.
-
You poor unenlightened chaps want to know the key to enjoying this movie: think of the scene in "Three Kings" when Spike Jonze is telling Clooney's character about how Troy shot an Iraqi in the neck and we see his head shoot straight up - that's "American Psycho"- a disturbed yuppie's fantasy of acting out all that bottled-up rage that's been nesting inside him. And, Harry, I don't care what ya say - those monologues about 80's tunes were funny. I expected a movie that would completely drain me mentally and physically. What I got was a cartoon. Not as dark and evil as "Very Bad Things." Doesn't get under the skin the way "Silence of the Lambs" does. But what it does, it does well. Now, if only Raymond Scott would have composed the music. (Yeah . . . probably a little too wacky).
-
i saw it last night with some friends and we all liked it not exactlly what i expected but good none the less i mean that stray cat scene was f***ing hilarious
-
I won't start off right away by saying that your review of american psycho was dead wrong (pun intended). But I will say this, for a movie reviewer you have your facts mxed up. For one thing let me say that I absolutely hate it when movie reviewers refer to any sord of decent movie dialogue to being a cheesy Quinten Tarrintino rip off. This really offends me. It's like no one ever thinks that someone can be origional these days because it will always be branded as such. American psycho was written as a book in the early nineties, way before Pulp fiction came out, or any of his movies. American psycho was an ok movie. The musical trivia along with the killing scenes added a nice flare to the already demented scene. It is what is called origionality. When is the last time we saw a killer talk about pop music so intuitively in a movie...? Was it in a tarrintino film? Nope. Pulp fiction was a good movie, but it's because of people like you that make it hard for other writers to get a chance. It's your narrow mind that sees everything as a copy of quentin's work ( who is a fine director).
Secondly. Why in the world would you give away the ending to this movie when it's barely been out two days. What is your problem. I have never in my life read a review where the reviewer gavaway the ending. You must be some sord of asshole! And by the way there was nothing wrong with the ending, it was clever and plausibe. And gave us a look into the mind of a genreation of greed that still exists today.
In short, I would appreciate if you didn't give away the ending to all the movies you review, I am scared to read your other ones. -
I haven't read all the talkbacks, but judging from the sheer number and many of the subject lines, it looks like I'm not alone in thinking this movie was fantastic! I was in a less than 1/2 full theater yesterday in Dallas, and one of about three of four people laughing. BTW, I abhorred the book, couldn't finish it because it was literally nauseating, IMHO. But I really think this idea translated better as a movie than as a book. Not saying that B.E. Ellis is a brilliant author, but he just tried too hard to push his point across on paper. Mary Harron took the essential plot, and created a brilliant film. Precisely because so much could be communicated with subtlety and fantastic acting, rather than having to be spelled out (literally, in the book). As a woman, I actually sympathized with Patrick. I don't think he hated women (as implied in the book), he hated himself and he was actually the only honest person (other than his secretary) in the entire film! I thought it was heartbreaking that he kept trying to tell someone what he was doing and feeling, but everyone else was so disconnected and shallow that he wasn't heard. I realized I was almost LIKING Patrick during the break-up scene with Evelyn, who was the most monstrous character in the movie for me. And I don't think the ending was "wink, wink"y at all. I did feel that the gunfest was possibly fantasy/nightmare, but everything else clearly was real. Patrick's last words weren't meant to convince us that he had imagined everything, they spelled out the fact that nothing he could possibly do would mean anything, which was his own hell. Basically, put these very dramatic elements up against the hilarious musical rants (could you try ANY harder to find some kind of meaning in the worst music every created? Now THAT'S an optimist!), and American Psycho is a movie I want to see again. Unfortunately, no one I know will even consider seeing it so we can discuss ad nauseam, because they believe Gary Cogill on WFAA News, that this is "the most violent film ever made." WTF?
-
Apr 17, 2000 2:28:05 PM CDT
Bateman hates imperfection, no wonder Harry hates this movie
by prajadhipok
This was a pretty good funny movie... I can't take your criticisms too seriously man!
-
Are the killings real? Does it matter? Is it in his head? Yes, yes, no. To understand American Psycho, one must read BE Ellis' catalog of work; otherwise, much of the book can be understood but in no way can be appreciated. For starters, in the book Glamorama, Pat Bateman makes another appearance with blood on his shirt sleeve. When asked of this at a book signing in Denver, Ellis said, although he hated to admit it and he wanted it to be ambiguous, Bateman was not imagning them. While I loved the movie and the book is one of the few noteworthy written accomplishments of the last 20 years (and brother, that is a very short list) I hated Christian Bale and his delivery. If you haven't read the book, don't go too far about the movie. It does a good job at capturing the humor and if you got annoyed at the music, the biz cards etc., it's only b/c you haven't read the damn book. Read it. For those who've only read Psycho, read Rules of Attraction to find out about Bateman's brother Sean, possibly a sicker cat than Bateman. Anyway, I'd recommend the movie but would certainly recommend the book.
-
...and if you got the impression that he did, you've sadly missed the point. The two pieces of "evidence" that are used to corroborate this theory are a) Paul Allen's apartment suddenly being clean and empty, and b) Bateman's lawyer telling him Allen is in London. First of all, the apartment was likely cleaned up by the estate agent, to prevent a scandal in the building that would lower property values. This is a continuation of the film's themes of greed - rather than report the murders or turn Bateman in when he arrives at the apartment, they discreetly clean up and keep quiet, so they can rent out the apartment again. Second, the lawyer's revelations about Allen's whereabouts mean NOTHING - mistaken identity and interchangability are constants throughout the film. It's just as likely that the lawyer THOUGHT he had dinner with Allen in London, but because he, like everyone else, is so self-absorbed, and everyone is so interchangable, who he THOUGHT was Allen could have been anybody. He doesn't even realize he' s talking to Bateman, for God's sake! He thinks Patrick is someone else! Weren't you paying attention?
-
I haven't seen American Psycho yet. However, I intend to, in spite of the bad review. I liked the book a lot. I was a teenager in the greedy Raygun error. And I can tell you, I'd much rather be living in Clinton's America than that b-movie actor/senile fascist/Grandpa Caligula's. I was one of the hardcore punk kids running around with a "Die Yuppie Scum!" t-shirt, a sentiment that I still hold. Bonzo, oh wait, that was the chimp. Reagan was a piece of shit figurehead for all that was and is wrong with this country. And before any of you Rush Limbaugh wannabes dismiss me as some sort of pablum puking liberal (Whatever happened to Morton "Some nazi skinheads assaulted me in a restroom." Downey Jr.?), I'm a death penalty supporting guy who's politics is all over the spectrum. Anyway, enough ranting. I'll be disappointed if they cut out too much of the violence. Obviously, they're not going to be able to show everything. It would be unrateable and unwatchable except to people who fetishize autopsies. However, I hate when they wimp out too much when it comes to onscreen violence, or sex for that matter.
-
First of all, apparently there ARE things he liked about it, but is too biased to go into them because GOD FORBID some of us will see this movie. I have, twice, once with my brother and once with my girlfriend and we all liked it. Its a good fucking movie, a movie you can talk about a lot after seeing it. Its well made, looks a lot better than the seven million it cost, very funny, a great satire, even if Harry disagrees, and sorry if it wasn't violent enough for you. But Christ, for one thing his first qualm: The rantings on music. Ok, I don't know if Harry missed this or what, but it wasn't intended to be COOl or HIP it was a joke. Bateman goes on and on waxing intellectual about shitty eighties music. At one point he's actually made fun of. He's referred to as a dork constantly because he is. It also takes a stab at critics because he can make shit sound artistic, or Harry can make a good movie sound like shit. What was the second? Christian Bale, yah, I think that was it. I'm not even going to get started. The performance bothered him? Oh well, I thought he was really good. The one thing that disturbed me the most about this review is Harry's horrifying dissapointment in the lack of grisly graphic violence. Sorry, a lot of it does happen off screen, but the stuff we do see is pretty brutal [spoilers] the stabbing and stomping of the homeless guy, the guy who gets shot in the head, the woman amid a chainsaw and a pull of blood, etc. [end spoilers] I mean, c'mon, that really doesn't help this review sound intelligent. I'm not calling Harry an idiot, just his review is idiotic. The ambiguous ending in question, was it real or wasn't it, for one isn't the point. Also, as a side note, its just a movie either way. No one was killed or mutilated during the production soooo that's not the most important thing going on there. Personally, I think the murders were real, granted there are arguements on both sides, but that's part of the fun. And really its a win/win because each conclusion is interesting. But really the notion parrelled with the Reagan administration is that if you put out the right appearance you can get away with murder. Plus the running joke of everyone mistaking eachother because they're all buying into the same GQ Yuppie image makes sense with the supposed Paul Allen sightings. The movie only gradually shows you what Patrick Bateman does, the murders having started long before the movie introduces us to him. He walks along side a woman on the street, and the following day he's cleaning blood stained sheets. Then we see the homeless man die. Then it escalates until the maddening climax but the differance is we're the only ones allowed to this side of him. His "friends" and coworkers are left in the dark. And really couldn't give a shit. Everyone's so plastic and self absorbed no ones going to notice and no one does. But other clues...lets see...the lock of hair, the head in the fridge, the overnight bag stuffed with a body, a bag that's noticed by an associate. I doubt he filled an overnight bag with clothes pretending it was a body. And he did for real attempt to kill that same guy in the bathroom, thwarted by, well, if you saw it you know what I mean. That was a funny scene. And Jean really did go to his place and he really did have a nail gun. But despite it all if it was in his imagination it still reaches the same effect. The drawings, also, are explained when he says in narration that his bloodlust is spilling over into the days, so at work he staves himself over by drawing them out. Like he draws out the chainsaw incident on the table cloth. And in question to the apartment, granted that's a head scratcher, but in his confession that happened a couple weeks beforehand, when the apartment was seen, and there was something creepy about that lady, like she knew something was up, and his father was mentioned as practically owning the company, so, you never know. But he's all "zany" at the end when he realizes he's gotten away with it, that his confession was taken as a joke, that he can do anything as long as he maintains his image. And then he calms, realizing that he's learned nothing reliving all of this, there's been no change or revelation, and he accepts his psychopathic serial killer state. And one last thing, considering Lions Gate is planning sequels, I doubt they'd be of much interest or worth if it were just more imaginary psycho fun with Patrick Bateman. That joke only works once. But I still like the idea of it being open ended, allowing for mind bending disscusion and casual arguments. And the idea of talking to someone else who seems just like you who could be imagining smashing your face in with an axe is just as disturbing as if he really did. But I imagine that if in your imagination you had the capacity to murder others around you without feeling guilt or any such emotion then actually killing them isn't far off. That could be what's in store for the sequels. So it works either way. Shit, that was fun. I just ranted on and on to this dead board where no one's listening. Oh well, fuck it. It was a good writing exercise and time killer.
-
This film has only just come out in England and I've got to say the reaction from the audience in the cinema where I was, was very mixed. I think that I was one of a handful of people who chuckled through most of the film. And as for it not being gruesome enough... I thought that the scene where the prostitute saw the blood beginning to seep through the sheets before trying to escape from the apartment was about as freaky as it gets. Subtlety is everything.
-
First of all, this movie does -not- rip off Quentin Tarantino (forgive me if I spelled his name improperly) for the simple reason that the book this movie was based on (and yes, the music trivia is in the book as well) was written before anyone knew a damn thing about Q.T.
The book was probably the singlemost horrifying piece of literature I've ever read, and the movie could not possibly have made it into the theaters if they included half the things in the book.
For instance, there is a scene near the end of the book where Bateman kills a child, seperated from his mother, at a zoo exhibit and hides the child behind a trashcan to wait for him to die. Meanwhile, the child is discovered, and the frantic mother calls out for help. Bateman strolls up, claiming he's a doctor and is there to help, and the last thing the child sees is Bateman, his killer, looming over him as he dies. I lack the writing finesse to do the scene justice, so just read the book. It will make you appreciate the film for what it was.
Having read the book, I think the movie was pretty good. -
Harry, sorry, this is NOT a slasher movie. It's a very black comedy and very well done. It's not perfect but it is not a piece of shit either. The ending will probably make people who are used to tidy Hollywood endings mad, but I urge everyone to see it. Those who do will be rewarded with hours of rich contemplation.
-
everyone warned me that this movie was shite but I went to see it anyway.I guess I have no-one to blame but myself.What a cheap,
nasty,pretentious badly acted piece of trash.The production values were poor-Bateman's"penthouse"looked like a box and he was wearing his suits for someone else-I guess all the money was spent bribing critics to give this a good review.How else can you explain some of those comments?
next time I'll listen to Harry -
This guy went to a job where he did not work. He had a fiancee he did not care for or care to sleep with. He had rivalries with his peers based on the texture and style of their business cards. Who CARES whether the proposed offenses occurred. It seems to me that his existence needs more an outlet of escapism than you or I or any other person with REAL jobs, REAL relationships, and REAL impact on our lives and others. I care not to dwell on the "authentic version" of reality that occurred. The fact that HIS version of the events were both so funny (yes, the waxing on Phil Collins was funny, and was meant as satire) and yet, also so terrifying, but furthermore, so believable. Challenge: Get into the mind of a psycho, and disbelieve the only version of reality open to you. It's not a matter of will. One who is psychotic cannot flip-flop between "oh what really just happened *wink*", but there is one version of what happened. There was just one or two moments in the film where he realized that either a) killing was wrong and will have consequences, or b) he never did any of those things. I think the value of the film is better drawn not from "what really happened", but from spending a few days walking in the mind of a psycho (violent or harmless, he is delusional), and realizing that his indulgent imagination does rule his reality (in a version sense), as long as he can stay away from what may trigger disbelief and catharsis.
I hated the movie, but wound up loving it. It deploys plot inconsistencies, and defies kinder narrative ethics, to let the viewer spend a day walking in the shoes of one who creates his version of what happens, everyday, to satisfy his need for having had an impact, and for the credit of being a heartless badass. Give it another shot if you did not like it the first time. It was better when you consider this possible viewer experience. -
Harry, now I know just from reading your reviews you don't like anything that goes for a human issues in self-deprecating ways. But how can you call Bale a piece of shit!?!?!?! His friggin' smirk can make Lecter go normal!!
I was wondering can you get me some footage on the sliced scenes.
The AP website just seems not willing to give it to me. I am 18 and of legal age. -
I don't think American Psycho is supposed to be a slasher film at all. It's merely a commentary on male fantasies and on what the social elite can get away with. I thought the movie was very well made, very clean and superbly acted. Christian Bale is a true diamond in the rought of a bunch of bad young male actors, (Paul Walker and Freddie Prinze Jr. must DIE!)
-
Harry you dont seem to like this movie it is a black comedy not a horror extreme violence could have ruined it christian bale was excellent.
-
Horrible review.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- THE DARK KNIGHT RISES TV Spot Has New Footage And Dialogue! UPDATED To Add Second Spot! -- 305 total posts 305 posts
- UPDATE!! What The Hell Happened With G.I. JOE: RETALIATION?! -- 190 total posts 190 posts
- THE EXORCIST Is Being Remade... -- 166 total posts 165 posts
- Remember when I said I’d kill The Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day last? I lied. -- 155 total posts 155 posts
- Quint has seen the brand new Jaws restoration and demands that Universal do a wide theatrical rerelease this summer! -- 141 total posts 141 posts
- Gary Oldman Joins The ROBOCOP Remake! -- 146 total posts 133 posts
- G.I. JOE: RETALIATION Delayed Nine Months...Thanks To A Force More Sinister Than Cobra!! -- 276 total posts 126 posts
- The day we've all been waiting for has arrived...IN THE ARMY NOW II is in the works! -- 74 total posts 74 posts
- A New Clip From PROMETHEUS!! Charlize And Fassbender Talking About...Something (?)... -- 62 total posts 62 posts
- Honest Abe Dishes Out The Vampire Violence In The New Red-Band Trailer For ABRAHAM LINCOLN: VAMPIRE HUNTER!! -- 56 total posts 56 posts