Has anyone seen this crazy, confusing movie? I’m really not sure what happened? Were all the eventsw products of his imagination, or was he somehow hallucinating. I’m really unclear on exactly what happened.
I’ve read several reviews of this movie. They agree that the first half is a biting satire on the greed and consumerism of the 1980s and then falls apart.
Anytime a reviewer says a movie is okay, I know to avoid it.
You could read the book, and in so doing, get some feminists angry, always a worthwhile effort to tick them off.
lindsay
I saw this flick on Friday, and am writing a full-length review for my site (address in sig), to be published today or tomorrow.
In a nutshell, though, this is the sort of difficult, challenging, multilayered film that the average viewer will not enjoy. It’s like Fight Club, or Eyes Wide Shut, or any other “arty” movie. Some people will like it; some people won’t. That does not mean the movie is “good” or “bad” – it just means it speaks to some people, and doesn’t speak to others.
For what it’s worth, it spoke to me. It had a very complex awareness of the nature of identity, and role-playing, and how desperate seeking of self-worth can close one off both to oneself as well as to the outside world.
As far as the ambiguity of the ending, I don’t think it’s worth the energy of debating whether something “did” or “didn’t” happen. It’s clearly meant to be ambiguous, like at the end of Titanic (did Rose die, and go to heaven, or is she just dreaming?), or Total Recall (is this still part of the Rekall fantasy?), or Pleasantville (did that guy really turn into the other guy), or any other number of examples.
Instead of trying to figure out what “happened” in some objective sense, I think it’s more worthwhile to consider what the events mean. Yes, I know, most people don’t like to worry about that, which is why movies like Three Kings and Felicia’s Journey don’t do well at the box office. American Psycho won’t, either. Again, that doesn’t mean it’s either bad or good; any objective statement about a subjective quality like that is simply wrong-headed. Instead, those who are willing to absorb a film, consider its levels, and think about possible interpretations for hours or days afterward will find American Psycho a valuable, thought-provoking work, while those who want their meaning all up-front and obvious, served up on a platter instead of buried and requiring excavation – the people who liked Forrest Gump, in other words, which is most of the population – will find American Psycho to be a muddled, unclear mess.
Neither is right or wrong. It’s all about perception and preference.
Movie Geek Central – Reviews, news, analysis, and more! http://moviegeek.homestead.com
I read the book quite a while ago. Haven’t seen the movie yet, but I’m sure I will. I did read an extensive review of the movie and from that I can tell that the movie is basicly a glossing over of the book. Trust me, there IS NO WAY they could make a rated-R movie without leaving out quite a few extremely gory details from the book.
SPOILER ALERT!
PLEASE DO NOT READ UNLESS YOU’VE SEEN THE MOVIE!
Patrick Bateman (I think thats the Chrisopher Bale character- and I think that is the actors name) is a pathetic loser who has a job that his future father in law gave to him where he does nothing but obsess on business cards. He spends too much time analyzing bad music. He watches bad pornos all day. He is obsessive compulsive when it comes to his personal appearance. He is completely caught up in his little materialistic, self worshipping world- and is a total wus with serious delusional issues.
By the end of the flick it should be clear that Patrick is fantasizing all this killing. At the beginning of the movie, he threatens to kill a female bartender when it is obvious he is talking to himself. At the end he blows up a police car- clearly fantasized- and it is followed by the sequence where he enters his office twice- the first shooting everyone and the second where he does not.
He fantasizes about killing his rival at work, and killing prostitutes while in the meantime he never lays a hand on his fiancee, since it is clear that he is whipped and is taking his fantasy frustration out on other woman who he can contol.
Bateman is “full of disgust” not only for other people but mostly at his lonely, pathetic, meaningless life. Fantasizing about murder and killing is the only shred of manliness he has left, and in the end he does not even have that.
In the end, his lack of a spiritual altruitic guidance drives him berserk and he has a nervous breakdown, but does not kill anyone.
Anyway, I loved the movie. Whoever would have thought we’d see a scene with a guy axing another to death with Huey Lewis and the News playing in the background?
Haven’t seen the movie yet, but I read the book a few years ago. When I first heard about the movie I couldn’t fathom it being made with anything less than an NC-17 rating for extreme violence/violent sex. The movie must be missing the bulk of the book.
I think I’ll just stick with what I remember from the book. (shudder shudder) I have no need to see any of that acted out on the big screen, thank you.
I’ve read the book. It has left quite a lasting impression on my psyche as I think it has for anyone who has read it. If you enjoyed the movie at all, you really need to read the book. It will give you a much greater understanding of the film and a better sense of appreciation.
When I entered the theater, I was fully prepared to be disappointed. I’m always fully prepared to be disappointed; that’s why I’m such a happy fool. Anyway, the film was surprisingly wonderful. It can stand easily on it’s own, but it’s also a delightful interpretation of the Bret Easton Ellis novel.
I had, in my mind, a vision of how the movie would be made and was constantly amused and surprised when the director, Mary Haron, chose to focus on details that, on first read, I hadn’t given much thought to. This enabled a greater appreciation for the novel and the movie. In thinking back on the book in an effort to remember the specific issues that the director was addressing, I was forced to remember who I was and why I focused on the things that I did when I first read American Psycho.
Christian Bale was brilliant. I’d be more specific, but I lack the writing skills to effectively convey my true feelings on his performance. Before viewing the film, I could not imagine how an actor could pull off an effective Pat Bateman. Now, I think to my self, “Where has this Bale fellow been all of my movie going life?” Unfortunately, I checked the IMDB and found out. Boy was I disappointed.
I would have liked the violence and madness to stand out a bit more. What I found most stimulating about the novel was fast mental shifting required of me in order to process a dissertation on the musical works of Genesis immediately after absorbing 20 pages of horrifically brutal torture, rape and murder. I can understand why Haron held back though. It would have been very easy to let this film quickly degrade into pointless slasher film that would have made me ill.
The novel and the film are both highly recommended by me, the Great and Powerful tymp, but don’t let you kids get a hold of either.
I’m going to move this thread to MPSIMS, as it has evolved more into a review thread.