Rating: 
Summary: just ok after reading book
Review: i would have still given this a 3 if i hadnt read book 1st.the book of the same title is so much more superior that its depressing to watch.i know they cant do alot of the stuff the book does,but theres too much talking here.in the book,there are alot of chapters that are overlong,not interesting.they are vital though.the talky parts in the film version are not.the parts that are supposed to be comical are forced,and the way he flips out isnt set up properly.chloe really let me down here too,although there wasnt a juicy female role,she played it way too understated.if they(the producers/studio bigheads)wouldnt have minded an NC-17 rating,this could have been a better movie.i must give credit to miss harron.she did her best with some pretty disgusting material.i dont think it would have mattered if a man were to direct this,its just the ratings system and the harm it does to box office receipts.in the end,this is an enjoyable movie,the acting is good,(some lines are hurried and some scenes are forced),the plot is what it is.but i just cant help thinking that theres a better version waiting to be made!
Rating: 
Summary: Watching this once isn't enough
Review: Though this movie was probably not intended to be comical, the main character is so far out there that his comments and mannerisms are hilarious. After watching this a few times with people I know, we constantly quote things like, "I have to return some video tapes." Believe me, when you see the movie you will understand what I mean.
Rating:
Summary: an answer to "Watch the first half, then turn it off"
Review: This film is a satire of the materialistic '80s "Me Generation." That view of the film is certainly not "deeply flawed" but is rather an understanding of what the film is meant to be. The satire is much more apparent in the novel (though much tougher to take given the (appropriately) ridiculous amount of detail). As for your problems with plot points, consider this: NOBODY knows who ANYBODY is in this film! Nobody knows who Paul Allen really is, or who Patrick Batemen really is, or who Marcus Halberstram really is. Bateman's own lawyer doesn't even know who he is. They're all so wrapped up in themselves, they have no time to consider anybody else. Bateman's lawyer may have had dinner with Paul Allen, or with any number of other P&P employees, and he wouldn't have known the difference. The detective wasn't investigating Allen's MURDER, but his DISAPPEARANCE. Allen could have been anywhere, or dead, it really doesn't matter. Bateman's murders, real or imagined, are a reflection of how much he hates himself, his life, and all the other empty people around him. To take the film literally is to miss the point.
Rating: 
Summary: Truly disturbing taste in music
Review: I'd never cared for Ellis' books before, and I never read the novel this movie is based on, but I found myself watching this in a hotel room and got drawn in. This is a seriously warped movie, much more disturbing than any teenybopper slasher flick. Nothing is more intentionally perverse than the scenes in which the protagonist soliloquizes about his favorite music-- horrible, commercial stuff like Whitney Houston, Robert Palmer, and Huey Lewis-- I guess as a comment on the shallowness of the 80's commercial culture Ellis was satirizing. That scene where he calls "The greatest love of all" one of the most beautiful songs ever written completely without irony...well, there's more to this movie that will turn your stomach. Not for the squeamish. I don't care for gore much myself, but this is a good movie that effectively explores all manners of disturbing behavior and thought. Only complaint: the ending of the movie makes less sense than Fight Club's ending did. See it if you wanna get creeped out.
Rating: 
Summary: Watch the first half, then turn it off
Review: This movie seems (based on the reviews) to be loved by people who think that it's a story of a serial killer that sends up 80's materialism, or who think that it's a moving psychological study of a psycho who doesn't actually commit any murders, but whose vacuity represents 80's culture. Both views are deeply flawed. If the main character really is committing the murders, then the story line is completely irrational, as there is no explanation for the disappearance of the bodies he has been storing, and no explanation of why his lawyer would insist at the end that one of his victims was alive. In other words, if he really is a murderer, the film makes no sense. If the main character is only imagining the murders, then there is no explanation for the detective investigating the murder of Paul Allen (and what happens to him, anyway?), no explanation for how he comes to have a key to Paul Allen's apartment when he comes back to discover it cleaned and painted, and no explanation for why Paul Allen's apartment would have been vacated in the first place, if (as the lawyer insists) he is still alive. In other words, if he is only imagining the murders, the film makes no sense. So, watch the first 45 minutes for their cinematic style, then turn it off -- unless you choose to view the movie as random images, you will be frustrated to find that there is no plot, many apparent issues remain unresolved, and there is no overarching meaning that is capable of being understood.
Rating:
Summary: If I Could Only Give it Zero Stars...
Review: This has to be on the top of the worst movies I ever saw. Thank God I rented and did not buy it. It was a very demeaning movie, especially to women and it left me with a sick feeling inside. Very disturbing to think so many people gave it such high marks. It wasn't funny or scary...just disturbing and stupid. I highly Don't Recommend!!
Rating:
Summary: An unusual Drama.
Review: When a Rich Yuppie (Christian Bale in a Strong Effective Performance) his favorite pass time is to murdering people from the Streets of New York City for his own pleasure and he`s slowly turning into one sick twisted Psychopath. Directed by Mary Harron (I Shot Andy Warhol) and Screenplay by Director:Harron and Guinevere Turner-Based on a Novel by Bret Easton Ellis. Lions Gate Films wanted Director:Oliver Stone and Actor:Leonardo DiCaprio in this film. Director:Stone didn`t wants to make this movie, because it will be another Natural Born Killers and Actor:DiCaprio didn`t want to do this film, because he didn`t want to hurt his fans, Since Lions Gate did offer him $20 Million for the Film. Lions Gate films went back for Harron and Bale. This film was made in New York City and Toronto. This film has a good Supporting cast from this, which they are:Willem Dafoe, Chloe Sevigny, Resse Witherspoon, Samantha Mathis, Jared Leto, Josh Lucas and Matt Rose. The film which is not for sure not for all tastes. DVD`s has an sharp anamorphic Widescreen (2.35:1) transfer and an impressive Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound. Followed by a Directed to Video Sequel with a different Cast, which is not about Patrick Bateman. Super 35. Grade:A-.
Rating:
Summary: Die Yuppie Scum!
Review: I love this film, since I love the eighties. The music was wonderful, Christian Bale's portrayal as the schmuck businessman who whines about his life yet gets paid to sit on his ... and do nothing was comical. And Reese Witherspoon was definitely entertaining as the idiot fiancee of Patrick Bateman. Rent it before you buy it. NR version is worth owning, though it's just 10 long seconds more of the threesome scene.
Rating:
Summary: 55555 stars
Review: This is one of those movies which does not only convey a story, but an atmosphere much like Fight Club, and the Matrix to an extent. The humour is not obvious; Bateman finds the shade of white on his business card more important than slaughtering coworkers. Some people's reviews have given this film a low rating because 'the film doesn't give them any deep spiritual enlightenment' or 'There's nothing here that an intelligent person who has barely scrutinised the 80s can't get, and there's no reason to sit through almost two hours of tripe to get to it'. Lighten up, it's a film, it is meant to be entertainment not a social economics lecture. I would file this DVD between Fight Club and Phil Collins Live. It is probably best viewed for the second time as the humour relies on knowledge of the story/character. In my opinion this is in my top 5 films.
Rating:
Summary: Incomplete But Lovely
Review: I realize it's not fair to compare a book and a movie; having said that, I'll do it anyway. The book doesn't grab you so much as make you curious; you really don't like this guy, even in the first few pages, but you want to know why you don't like him. Its length, in terms of scenes and delivery, is perhaps 3 times the movie's length. Having pointed out where the movie falls short of the book, allow me to say that the movie is a pretty faithful reproduction of roughly 1/3 of the book. If you read it first, you'll catch lines, see scenes, remember things from it -- but you'll feel disappointed at the ending. You cannot, in modern market requirements, make a film that would accurately capture the entire book. Fair enough. This 1/3 of the book in film isn't terrible. My one problem was the chainsaw scene -- a complete departure from the book, if my memory serves...! The one flaw in an otherwise small but interesting and valuable gem of a movie.
|
