Rating: 
Summary: Excellent dark comedy
Review: Christian Bale plays a nameless, faceless yuppie in the 80's. A commentary on materialism and capitalism, the movie is fascinating to watch as Bale's character tries to make a name for himself. Waiting to see if he'll get caught makes for great suspense. Bale is hysterical (and very easy on the eyes) when he's offering his opinion on the music of the day or flying into a jealous rage when co-workers show him their new business cards. It can get gruesome at time so watch it with the lights on.
Rating: 
Summary: Great movie! Not Enough Bonus Features.
Review: This was a wonderful film that satirized rich, white, republican life in the late 80's, and accomplished it's goal with gusto! The film itself is very dark and well, psychotic. But there is something about the dialogue that makes you laugh. There are many lines in this movie that are downright hysterical. Most of them I can't say in this review because they are too adult-oriented. But I will say "Don't just stare at it, Eat it!" The performances in this film were very memorable. Christian Bale is an actor whose career I will watch with great interest. Reese Witherspoon is funny and sarcastic as ever. Jared Leto did okay but his most memorable scene was his death scene. The rest of the cast was fine but the true star of this film is Christian Bale. The film is great and worthy of 5 stars. But it does not have enough special features to make it a 5 star DVD. If youre looking for something to rent at the video store than pick this up. But don't buy it unless you are a big movie collector.
Rating:
Summary: A TRUE REVIEW FOR A CLASSIC FILM
Review: I remember reading Ellis' "American Psycho" during the early 1990s. At that time, and in my circle, only a few of us a) liked the book, b) understood its message/s, or c) identified with the characters. When I learned of the cinematic aspirations, I was very skeptical. Especially after finding out that the director/s were female. I was convinced that their gender would erase some important filters which Ellis illustrated in fine literary form. As reluctant as I was, I attended a pre-opening day screening in order to put all my worst fears to rest. However, from the initial scene I was enthralled and impressed; almost proud of the fact that I (and a select few) had discovered this masterpiece in its purest form almost a decade earlier. The sleek and seductive surroundings and camera angles proved to be almost as descriptive as my own imagination during that first reading. Though, I've read countless reviews and analysis of this film, I feel compelled for the American audience to fully understand what its nature is; what the rhetoric means, and possible states of inspiration. O.K., most reviewers mention the comic aspects of the film/book. From a purely characteristic perception, there is no comedy involved. For example, Patrick Bateman (played brilliantly by Christian Bale) seemingly can't fathom a cohort attaining better looking business cards than he. When he perceives this to happen, he goes into an obvious meltdown. To the audience, this seems inane and comical, almost a harmless light-hearted look into the pretentiousness of the 1980s. However, to Mr. Bateman his world is crashing down. His ego is shattering. And there's nothing he can do at the time except internalize his psychosis. There's really nothing funny about that from the main character's perspective. There isn't time or room for all of the other examples of mispercieved "dark" humour, so I shall continue with the meaning of Patrick Bateman's murderous rampage. He collects bodies like sports coats, and thrives on the seedier aspects of urban life. He doesn't walk-the-talk of the classic yuppie and is prone to manic breakdowns. Herein lies the key to the film: Patrick Bateman's fragile, eggshell mental state. During the film, the successful audience member must ask himself, "Has Patrick Bateman actually slashed these people in his life? Or is he freeing himself (his mind) to do so later?" This is where Ellis truly retrieves his "psycho" in the title. Viewed from this standpoint, the movie shall transcend its own platonic acetate, and the viewer can seemingly watch two movies simultaneously. I won't allow myself to uncover too terribly much, as several readers probably haven't seen the film, but the final scene opens up many new possibilities for the main character. This film sets a new standard in American cinematography, and to miss it can only leave a large hole in your entertainment life. In a word: CLASSIC!
Rating: 
Summary: Intriguing Yet Distubing at the Same Time
Review: Christian Bale stars in this adaption of Bret Easton Ellis' story of the same name. The main purpose of this movie was to tell the tale of a ruthless serial killer that looked like an average guy. It takes place during the 80's and just as in the book, the movie focuses on greed. Money is an object that means nothing but can get you everything that you desire. Drugs, clubbing, eating expensive food, and keeping yourself looking good. All of these are the items that mean everything to the main character. What was disturbing about this film was the killing. It was done with a satire feel, which in itself was interesting and original, but was odd and made you think twice about what you were watching. Bale does a fabulous job with the role, playing a serial killer/business man to the "T". It was a good movie, you just have to keep an open mind while watching it.
Rating:
Summary: Not just Social Commentary or Satire, its ENTERTAINING!!
Review: Why do you think movies like this rarely cross the 10 million box office mark, while "Big Daddy" and "Wild Wild West" easily cross the 100 million mark... One might answer this question like this... "People are Stupid".. but that's not the answer, it's because people (unlike critics) go to the movies for Entertainment.. If all the critics that raved about "American Psycho" had used the word Entertaining, it would have made about 60-80 million, and if it had Leonardo De Caprio like the producers wanted, it would be up with "Titanic". "American Psycho" is highly entertaining the whole way through, hysterically funny most of the way through and Ultra-violent for about 10 seconds, you average freddy 27 and Jason 49 have double the blood, triple the body-count and a "Video Premiere" sticker on there video cover. It really is not very violent at all. (am I just getting sicker, or is the world over-populated by cry-babies) If the film had been released in the time it was set, (the 80's) it would be slapped with a PG 13, released alongside "Commando", "Running Man" and "Cobra", it would become a cult favourite with pre-teens, and would be lost among the sea of violent 80's videos at your local Blockbuster. As your probably well aware, this film features "SOCIAL COMMENTARY" and "SATIRE", these three words are scarier to the general public than "PAULY SHORE" and "CHUCK NORRIS". The Second Roger Ebert and his peers utter those three words the box office drops 85%. (see Box office takes for "Wag the Dog", "The End of Violence" and "Happiness" for example) Just like with every other movie on the face of the earth, if you have the slightest interest in it.. See it, don't be swayed by anything you hear, see it and make up your own mind.
Rating:
Summary: Throw Away Cultural Comment
Review: I threw this book away when I finished it. Not because it washorribly graphic and highly disturbing (which it is), but because itjust ends. So maybe the author's point is that there was no point, especially in the highly materialistic 1980s. Nonetheless, I wanted a better conclusion. What I didn't want was to see this book play on the big screen, but I did. Luckily, even with the unrated version, this movie isn't half as violent as the book. The movie skirts around the really nasty issues found in the book. And it also puts more distance between our smiling serial killer and his victims. I guess that makes the blood and mayhem much easier for mainstream digestion. But who cares, this movie isn't that good. The book is much better. I wish Leonardo Dicaprio had bucked his pop icon image and taken the main role. (He would have made a much better crazed yuppie.) If you have to see it, rent it or, better yet, borrow it.
Rating:
Summary: More than just a satire
Review: As the other reviews have stated, this movie is a fine satire of consumerism and the greed of this growing yuppie culture. But it is also more than that. It is an existential view of human nature, of the emptiness and uselessness of life, of being totally, utterly, alone. Bateman's character, who we are led to believe is a psychopath trying to convince himself that he is just insane, and therefore not responsible for the terror he creates, is trying desperately to connect with another human being. He has an idea that if he cuts them up and plays with their insides, and keeps their body, that he will find something more than the superficial outside. He is unable to show his inside, albeit one created by an empty society, unless he is with someone whom he about to either kill or sexually abuse. That is when he starts with his views on music, his one connection with anything more than material. But even his views sound very processed, and, though full of insight, lack any true emotional connection to anything. Bateman points out that he has only two recognizable emotions: greed and disgust. All other emotions he turns into emptiness. Early on, his fiance asks him why he must continue to do what he does. He answers "because I want to fit in". That is all he wants; he wants to be part of humanity, and connect with others. However, as he kills, he becomes farther and farther away from anything human. The brilliant ending completely twists the storyline. I won't say what happens, so as not to ruin it, but I will say that he gives a cry for help that is not heard, and he realizes that he is just a lost soul with no hope of redemption. At this point it becomes apparent that he is in fact insane, but not in the way that he believed--he appears to be schizophrenic, very distant from reality. As he drifts away his pain becomes more and more acute. That is the most disturbing aspect of this movie, more so than any violence or sex. The comfort we can take is that he is truly insane, and for most people there is a way out: his emptiness, as I mentioned, is not purely that. He does have many emotions, he just does not see them. He needs to examine himself, then he may achieve the salvation he cannot find in others. However, before I realized that, I found the movie awfully disturbing, as it suggested that we are all lost souls, with absolutely no hope of ever touching anything real. Do not watch this movie unless you are a)planning to not pay attention, or b)prepared to accept the true meaninglessness of life.
Rating:
Summary: BETTER THAN THE NOVEL
Review: Hollywood finally inproves a novel. Bret Easton Ellis' novel American Psycho was "cool" - but the movie was actually better. I still suggest anyone that enjoyed the movie should read the book. If you felt the movie was tame, rush out and get the book! The book and the movie are almost like bookends, you need them both to get the whole "psycho" experience. Ellis' first novel Less Than Zero was "trashed" when Hollywood adapted (completely rewrote) it for the big screen. So I was amazed this movie complimented the novel. I originally saw this movie at a "state of the art" theater and was suprized at how well the DVD "worked" as a home movie. Therefore, if you are into slasher, black comedy, satire of the 80' flixs, this is the primo DVD for you! Also, if you like German films, it definately has that European "feel" to it that many American movie goers just don't "get."
Rating:
Summary: Not what you might expect
Review: It's by now a cliche to say about a movie: "You either love it or you hate it," but I can think of no better way to nutshell American Psycho. Many people assume (myself included) that this would be a slasher flick, but nothing could be farther from the truth. Based on the Bret Easton Ellis novel of the Me Generation, Christian Bale takes us through a sometimes unsettling and always entertaing tour of the kind of self-centered vacuous yuppies that have come to be associated with the eighties. Bale plays Patrick Bateman, a soulless, opulent man who kills indiscriminantly, hates everyone, and finds his only source of joy in pop music, his reviews of which pop up frequently throughout the movie. The plot hinges on one fact: because Bateman looks so successful, he can get away with anything, even though he may not want to. The self-loathing but carefully preened focus of the movie is actually one of only two characters, the other being his assistant Chloe Sevigny. A strange movie, to be sure. The ending may leave you confused but you won't forget it for a long time to come, whether out of love or out of hate.
Rating:
Summary: Failed satire.
Review: Mary Harron's *American Psycho* is not a BAD movie, necessarily; it just isn't much of a movie. It certainly fails at satire, because you obviously need a target worth satirizing, and -- I'm sorry -- 1980's-era yuppies were ALREADY ridiculous to begin with. How can you make them more ridiculous than they already were? It's like making fun of game show hosts -- an exercise in redundancy. Harron has said that she has attempted to "rescue" the book by Bret Ellis from its bad reputation. (Why bother?) Her strategy is, first of all, to make this film a period-piece, i.e., cell phones bigger than one's head; that ghastly "nouvelle cuisine" thing that was going on in New York and L.A.; Walkmans; Huey Lewis and the News . . . so forth. Of course, by putting the murderous subtext so firmly in the past, you tend to distance the movie from all the blood our serial killer spills. As I watched all this, I was thinking that there was no good reason NOT to have this movie set in the present day. I mean, let me get this straight: people have NOT made a killing on Wall Street in the 90's? people quit wearing Walkmans? is "fusion" cuisine any better than "nouvelle"? are the Spice Girls less tacky than Huey Lewis? In other words, we're in no position to sit back smugly and laugh at the trends of ten or fifteen years ago. Other failures: the stilted dialogue and narration, which, I take it, is directly from the book. (Now I KNOW I'll never read the dang thing.) Christian Bale's impossible task is to give convincing readings of lines like "Phil Collins' solo work is more commerical, and therefore satisfying in a narrower way." Sheesh! This isn't a real person. I like Bale, but this is an unplayable part -- there isn't a believable moment in it. However, the satire does get sharper when the yuppies are sitting around comparing business cards. The film is almost worth watching for that scene alone -- it's hilarious. But Harron is so intimidated by her material! Every frame shouts "Don't get mad! It's a satire! It's a satire!" Not that I was counting, but doesn't Bale end up killing more MEN than women? You better believe this was by design. The reason we know of Ellis' book in the first place was its graphic description of mutilations perpetrated upon women. There's virtually nothing like that in this movie. And to further neuter the material, we're led to believe at the end that all of it was in the guy's head, anyway. Which begs the question: "What was the point?"
|
