Rating: 
Summary: Haven't we been here before?
Review: Well here we go with some originality. A "comedy", or is it a satire, about the Eighties. In my opinion it's merely an excuse for bloodletting and Christian Bale to strip down all the time. I found it's intellectual content to be shallow, acting to be marginial, and it's moralistic overtone to be questionable. First of all why does it require death and violence to be a satire on America in the Eighties and second of all since when has multiple homicides been humorous? Looking over the reviews I'm not sure what I found to be worse. the fact that so many talk about the laughs that broke out during the murders or the folks who go on and on about the Eighties soundtrack and clothes. Perhaps the real statement about the American way of life should be the lack of reaction that this movies didn't invoke from people. I dare say we aren't so far removed from the Romans as we may think.
Rating: 
Summary: Psychology of American Psycho.
Review: After looking over the reviews for American Psycho I felt I'd put my two cents in. I see that some people felt the movie was sub-par and others felt it to be a Christian Bale tour-de-force, while others either liked or disliked the adaptation to the big screen, and still others who seemed like they didn't get the message at all. I didn't read the book before seeing the film. It has been my experience with most books that they don't end up making better movies. I liked American Psycho because I knew that it was a satire of American culture in the 1980's. The film delivered a satire that showed the extremes of our culture and also mocked it. I found the film to have multilayers, which is a good film in my book. Plotless, not exactly, perhaps simple, but not plotless. Here is a man who works on Wall Street. He has no social life of his own, no ideas that are his own, no feelings that are his own. He is breaking down mentally living in this sterile condition in which emotions are severly downplayed, ignored or ridiculed. What's next? The next logical step the main character takes is to kill a transient--who he states he can't relate to. He goes on to attempt to kill some hookers and some co-workers. All for the sake of feeling alive, of feeling individual, of having or making some meaning out of his life. Since it is a satire of the 1980's "me" culture, Patrick Bateman and his world underline this culture to its fullest and then exaggerate it. I thought it was well done. I can't think of any other movie that so eloquently and intelligently mocks the 1980's culture and society. Of course, this was only a slice of America during the 80's and not the whole story. Christian Bale turned in a fine, stilted/controlled/obsessive-compulsive/calculating performance of a character that slowly breaks down and snaps under the pressure of having to live under the oppressive circumstances he encounters. I thought it was well directed and acted as well as written. I also have a tendency to like films that have some element of social commentary/human condition to them. But, people will see what they want to with any film and there are plenty of other interpretations that can be applied to this film. I just think it's original and re-watchable, and years from now some people will refer back to this film as a trendsetter, because I'm sure there will be other films that reach a wider audience that deal with the same themes touched upon here. Oh yeah, I noticed that some reviewers didn't understand the chainsaw scene and how no one could notice him running down the hall after the hooker...well...isn't that just another example of the 1980's "me" culture? If everyone is so absorbed in themselves, as they supposedly were in the 80's, then no one would notice a naked man with a chainsaw running down the hall after a hooker would they? Excellent metaphor. Certainly worth a video rental.
Rating:
Summary: So far the best movie of 2000!
Review: I seem to be one member of an elite group of people who absolutely LOVED this film. Upon seeing AMERICAN PSYCHO in a sold-out theater, it was painfully obvious to me that most of the movie-goers in there were expecting something along the lines of SCREAM. A crumby slasher flick. A story which displays a number of gruesome and well-thought out deaths. A story where there is a hero. A story which ends happily ever after. This movie had none of the above, which is what made it such a fantastic and original film. Despite the graphic violence portrayed in the novel by Bret Easton Ellis, most of the killing is off-screen and left to the viewers' imagination. But the slaughter is also accompanied by fabulous black humour. In fact, I can't remember the last time that I laughed so hard at a movie (and was looked back at like there was truly something seriously wrong with me). Mary Harron does a fantastic job directing this movie and her decision to cast (and stand behind) Bale as Bateman is nothing more than perfect. *Some may know that Harron temporarily left the directors' chair when the studio told her that Bale would be replaced by Leonardo DiCaprio. The film was almost given to Oliver Stone, but came back to Harron when Leo decided against the role...THANK GOD! All-in-all, AMERICAN PSYCHO is flawless. If you've got a taste for humour which is black as night, a knowledge of 80's pop culture and if you know just a tad about serial killers and the fact that they can indeed be that handsome man next door, you'll EAT THIS MOVIE UP! Enjoy!
Rating:
Summary: To those who Argue against the movie...
Review: The length of a theatrical run does not dictate the greatness of a movie. Just look at such high-quality entertainment goodies like Disney's "Dinosaur", or the lamentable "Pokemon" features. These have been in theatres for Ages and, creatively speaking, leave much to be desired. I can recall that in my area "American Psycho" was in theatres for less than two months: I wouldn't expect otherwise because of the subject matter. I personally saw it three times in theatres, and was hoping to see it more but it left. On one of these occasions, there were ten other people with me: a couple in their thirties, two ladies in their seventies, and a couple in the back in their late forties. I was the only one laughing. When you're dealing with controversial subject matter, it is to be expected that the Masses (who support films ranging from the delightful musings of Mary-Kate & Ashley Olson to the melodramatic heavy-handedness of "Titanic") neither appreciate nor enjoy such non-mainstream fare. For enthusiasts for the book, one cannot expect that it be too directly translated, otherwise, like the little known "Castle Freak", it would have to go direct to video, if that. To those who think that you need to have read the book to understand it, maybe if you only have half a brain, than yes. I saw it without having even seen a trailer (much less reading the book) and saw it for what it was: a chronicalling of the turbulent times of a fed-up man's life. Having read the book, I can appreciate the subtle combinations of the pontifications on Bad '80s albums with memorable scenes like Jared Leto getting axed to death (with "Hip to be Square" playing in the background). At its weakest, it is an inconsequential Fun movie, at its best, it really has something to say about the identity of the modern successful man.
Rating:
Summary: The worst movie I have ever seen
Review: Here's an experiment. Get some friends together, come up with $5000 and try to make a movie worse than American Psycho. Remember, though, you need to be uniquely gifted. First, pick a novel to butcher. It doesn't really matter what novel you pick, because what you are going to want to do is rob it of its tone. For instance, use Catcher in the Rye as your source material for a gay porn flick. You can do this because of that one little part late in the book where Holden's old teacher makes a pass at him. Okay, so we've got a gay porn Catcher, great. Next, cast someone thouroughly inappropriate to play the lead. If American Psycho is our template where the elegantly sinister yet vacuous Patrick Bateman is transformed by Christian Bale into a grinning momo who can't dress himself, then we need to turn our beloved, irreverent Holden into a punctual English schoolboy complete with knickers, a crucifix, and a tongue which only gets fiesty when it's time for some serious action. Finally, remember how Ellis' novel was a serious gorefest? Remember the bum on fifth having his eye sliced out to inaugurate it all and then the rats routing tunnels through that chick's torso to conclude the festivities? Well, none of that is in the movie. Neither were the "hardbodies", dapper threads or Donald Trump musings which permeated the novel. It's all right though. Catcher in the Rye had no sex at all, and when there was mention of sex by Holden, it was in relation to females. When it's all over, release the bugger on DVD with some outtakes and multiple angles. And don't forget to claim that you were trying to "rescue" the novel from its own bad reputation.
Rating:
Summary: too bad I can't give it zero stars.
Review: I am writing for the soul purpose of keeping someone from wasting there time and money. I did not read the book. Anyways, I saw the movie and must say it was one of the top 3 worst movies I have ever seen. Bad acting, bad plot, bad script, and bad effects. I am not sure if they are encouraged at amazon to can bad reviews to increase sales or what or if the people who wrote the reviews saw the same movie I did. The movie was in the theaters for how long? That should tell the story right there. PLEASE DO NOT MAKE THIS PURCHASE, THERE ARE BETTER FILMS TO PURCHASE!.
Rating: 
Summary: I was disappointed
Review: The film is disjointed as it relies heavily on a previously gained knowledge of the novel. Bateman is not properly introduced and the film succumbs heavily to the afore mentioned fault. Despite this, if you have read the book, then the film is interesting to watch due to the images you may have created in your head and how they differ to those generated by Harron in the film.
Rating: 
Summary: If Norman Bates decided to abandon hotels for Wall Street...
Review: He would probably "do lunch" with the title character, Patrick Bateman (Christian Bale). Like Norman, Patrick is out of his damn mind. Lord knows what they would eat since Patrick has a severed head in his refrigerator. Oprah would have a field day: Men Who Love to Kill and the Women who are Too Stupid to Notice.Patrick is a methodical person who has a ritual for everything from washing his face, to exercising his breath-taking body, to dissecting acquaintences with axes, chainsaws, and what have you. He walks a tightrope to keep his normal, businessman daytime appearance separate from his vampirish, Hannibal Lecter nighttime persona. William Dafoe portrays a cop who is just on the verge of discovering the secrets behind Patrick's wry and dry, sarcastic facade. From the safety of year 2000, the audience can view Patrick with 20/20 vision hindsight as a parody of the way America was in the 80s - Wall Street wealth and greed, designer labels and drugs, power lunches, Huey Lewis and the News - and we shudder, partly from shame. Because of Patrick's successful yuppie appearance he can and does announce his killer nature repeatedly, and people laugh him off. "Stop being silly, Patrick!" or "That's not funny, Patrick. Quit playing around!" Patrick's need to kill is triggered whenever he feels socially inadequate. At these moments he'll say "I need to return some videos," which is code for, "I must kill you dead now." During the killing scenes, I laughed my head off. Why? Christian Bale delivers the most ridiculously shallow lectures on the significance of say, Phil Collins or Huey Lewis to the 80s music scene (sidenote: lawsuits by Huey Lewis are pending). And then he gets to whacking. The fact that I laughed made me feel uncomfortable because it seemed really inappropriate. But everyone else in the theater laughed too. And so will you. Like the villain(s) in Hitchcock's Psycho and Rope, Patrick manages to elicit the viewer's sympathy, especially during moments of humor. And Patrick experiences at least one moment of pity and compassion that makes you almost like him. Almost. Funniest scene: A male acquaintence mistakes Patrick's attempt to kill him in the men's bathroom as a sexual come-on. Most annoying scene: Patricks chases a screaming, half-naked hooker down his apartment hallway while he waves a running chainsaw in the air and shouts at her. She pounds on apartment doors for help, but not one person looks out to see what's going on, or at least to shout "Shut the hell up! I'm trying to sleep!" The viewer should just suspend reality here. I guess the idea of an upper middle class killer is supposed to startle. But since the book was written, America has experienced Claus von Bulow, OJ Simpson, Jon and Patsy Ramsey, Kip Kinkel, and the Columbine shooters, among others. The people you least suspect, are now America's most wanted. But this previous type of denial is what enables Patrick to build his severed limb collection, have very public breakdowns, without people suspecting him. Christian Bale gives an excellent performance in this movie and goes on to portray Jesus (of all people) in a made-for-TV movie, perhaps to establish range and to prevent the typecasting that dogged the career of the original PSYCHO, Anthony Perkins. Which is good for Bale, since he plays a similar role, to lesser effect in SHAFT. Still want to watch AMERICAN PSYCHO? Think PSYCHO/A CLOCKWORK ORANGE/ SILENCE OF THE LAMBS/SEVEN and last, think THE USUAL SUSPECTS/THE SIXTH SENSE (you'll find out). If you can handle those movies, you can handle this one. If not, then you might not want to watch.
Rating: 
Summary: Psychology Majors only
Review: Unless you're a peychology major, you probably won't get much out of this film. In this movie, our main character preforms various sexual acts and then violently attacks and often murders his victims. If you are interested in psychology, you can see a deeper meaning to the violence and sexual display and into the mind of this corporate executive. I recomend this movie for those interested in psychology. For everyone else, this movie is probably a waste of your time.
Rating:
Summary: Psychology majors only
Review: Unless you're a psychology major, you probably won't get much out of this movie. In this film we have our main character preforming various sexual acts throught the movie before violently attacking and often murdering his victims. Being interested in psychology, I saw more detail into the disturbed life of this corporate executive. I recomend this movie for those who are interested in psychology. For everyone else, this movie might be a waste of your time.
|
