American Psycho

Having just finished American Psycho, I came to IMDB to get some clarification on the ending. And it seems I'm not the only one left vaguely adrift by the ambiguous ending.

I've browsed some of your comments, not all 400+ to be sure. But some of them. A good sampling I think, and this movie has three distinct cheering sections.

Those who consider it a masterpiece, those who consider it unredeemable, boring trash, and by far the largest segment, those who see it as a flawed masterpiece.

I fall into the latter category. And no, I did not read the book. But as others have stated any movie that requires you to read the book, to "get" the movie, is ultimately a failure as a movie.

So my review is based solely on the merits of the film. And contrary to what some have said, the film does have many merits. I found it brilliantly directed, and a superbly acted examination of excess, and boredom, and evil. An examination, satire, critique of a time, and type of thinking.

Even before seeing the ending, I thought how much bateman lives in people. Found myself thinking, an examination of bateman is an examination of men by the name of Reagan and Bush. How American Psycho is an examination of our times, and our modern theologies.

I found the movie as a whole riveting, loved the restraint shown (and disagree with those calling for more gore, I think Mary should be applauded for her deft hand, the scenes have more power for what is not shown), and was captivated by nearly every scene, by scenes others have called boring, but I found profound.

Bateman putting on his makeup, or simply trying to get a restaurant, and the near apocalyptic importance, such minutiae makes in the lives of empty men. The right card, or the right cloth, or the right table, or the right watch, how these are the signposts of an empty age and an empty soul, and how these things have more value than your fellow man... or woman.

Bateman attains everything the materialistic times tells him he should want, but once he gets it he feels nothing. Emptier than before, less than before. It's only in the extremes of his addictions he begins to feel something, anything. He feeds to fill the emptiness, but the more he feeds the emptier he gets. He eats at his fellowman (woman) but in his bloodlust he eats at himself.

He is the American dream, taken to its cannibalistic extremes.



And never before has makeup, played such a mesmerizing part in a movie. Bateman's(Chris Bale's) face at times when he is under stress, takes on a plastic look, a glossy, sweaty sheen, and for all the world it looks like he's wearing a mask... and the mask, his mask of sanity, is beginning to run.

Simply amazing use of makeup. And incredible performance by the lead actor. I wasn't familiar with him before this, but everyone will be after this.

Upon first hearing about this movie, I had no desire to see it. I've grown up since the age of Hills Have Eyes and trash like The Beyond, watching people suffer no longer seems significant. I guess as we get older we ask more of our art than springer, or the WWF, or slasher flicks. We ask of our art to tell us something true. Something of ourselves, and our world.

I think American Psycho under the deft hand of Mary Harron becomes more than my prejudices, and exceeds my expectations. Rises at times to dizzying heights not unlike art.

Mary's restraint makes this movie. But I fear her restraint nearly sinks it as well. The ending is too ambiguous. Who is Bateman in the end. Is there a Bateman? And what did he do or did not do?

In the end,the movie will nag at you. Did he or didn't he? And in the end, now that I write this I'm thinking maybe the answer doesn't really matter, maybe in the end the answer is the same. In the end a sin of thought, or a sin of action, is still a sin. In the end we are left with a man, and a nation... whose mask is slipping.

I think like the first Psycho, time will prove this one.... worthy. I now add Mary Harron to the small selection of modern directors I will tiptoe through broken glass to see. Directors like Dave Fincher(Seven, Fight Club), Carl Franklin(Devil in a Blue Dress), Johnny To(Expect the Unexpected), Ringo Lam(Full Alert, Victim), M. Night Shyamalan(Sixth Sense, Unbreakable), and Peter Weir(Fearless).

Recommended.

The film looks to examine our own distorted points of view or detachments from reality. Like Patrick Bateman, we may be trapped craving the approval of others and denying ourselves the ability to distinguish fantasies from our reality. People are obsessed with how the others perceive them likewise in American Psycho Bateman achieves no catharsis, he's trapped in his own personal hell because he requires the recognition of the other yuppies to confirm his identity as a murderer. The irony is that Feynman's real crimes may as well be fantasy. The lack of acknowledging his reality drives Bateman further into madness and existential despair

It's about yuppie culture, the melding of identity, and the craving to stand out from a superficial homogenized society. Bateman's interpretation of the world is skewed by his inflated ego and his evident psychosis as well as presumably multiple mental illnesses. Bateman is a killer, but still, he's not the killer he thinks he is, as he goes insane he can't distinguish reality from fantasy. His over the top chainsaw massacre style killings may be an aestheticized elaboration on partial truths, ultimately the film doesn't care. The more significant point of the movies absurdity is that within his society Batemans not the psycho at all he's just one more normal guy amidst a horde of uncaring detached from reality, secretly discontented American psychos. Bateman is surrounded by like-minded superficial people obsessed with all the wrong things like making impossible reservations at Dorsia and the tasteful thickness of their business cards. Within the homogenized upper-class elite identities blur as everyone strives after a generic yet highly specific image of success.

Everyone we see in Bateman's company appears to be the same person. It's no wonder that identity is mistaken continuously and swapped throughout the film. The lawyer has mistaken Paul Allen or perhaps Batman has killed the wrong person becomes not only plausible but also an expression of the general confusion resulting from the loss of individual identity.

Meanwhile, although Batman tries like the rest to fit in, the emptiness of his lifestyle also fuels a craving to stand out. To escape the conformity that he on some level despises Batman leads a second life as a killer, where he's unfettered from the bounds of society. Although he actually wants to be seen as a murderer as someone different from the rest of society Bateman is denied even the satisfaction by every self-absorbed yuppie he meets. When he's seen stuffing a body into the trunk of a car, the witness is only interested in the bag.

This is a great movie. Look for the subtext under the dialogue.

Having read the novel by Easton-Ellis a year ago I was intrigued to find out how it could be made into a movie.

Whilst turned off by the totally uneccesary details of Batemans crimes in the book, I felt that Easton's insight into superficial 80's yuppie culture made it a classic.

Who could play a credible Bateman? Leonardo Di Caprio? I think not.

How would Mary Harron deal with those controversial torture scenes?

What we got was one of the finest movies I have seen for some time. Of course, those of closed minds will slate this film without even bothering to see it, simply because of the book's notoriety.

I was impressed to see how closely Harron followed the book, replacing the un-filmable seens with suggestion, aka ear-cutting scene from resevior dogs, so that you believe you have seen more than you have. There are more parallels with Tarantino, such as the use of classic (& non classic ) 80's pop to create a stylised feel to the movie, that has not been seen since Pulp Fiction.

Casting was superb, with Cristian Bale giving the performance of a lifetime, We, the audience, saw the souless monster within, Batemans superficial aquaintences, saw another faceless human being.

Just like the book, you are never sure wether Batemans crimes are real, or just imaginary, but his slide into insanity is clearly real and paced expertly by Bale.

Rheese Witherspoon as Evelyn was disappointing, "Election" showed what a great actress she is and although this role called for an airhead performance, it was clear that she was cruising.

Mary Harron deserves the credit for creating an excellent film, that could have so easily been just another slasher movie.

Without a doubt the most underrated movie of the past decade, "American Psycho" is a piece of American cinema that shouldn't be missed by anyone, regardless if they do not like the violence (which does have its reasons).

Christian Bale gives a flawless performance as the troubled, deep down wannabe Yuppie who has psychotic, violent impulses. This is true acting here, folks. Not phoned in Tom Crooze acting. Some people object to Patrick Bateman narrating the movie [always a weak sign in a movie] and not letting us figure his motives out on our own, but if you watch closely, Bale shows us Bateman's vulnerablity through every minute of every day of his life. The movie is at times hysterical, as his character uses dominant Alpha Monkey behavior around the opposite sex. But again, it's all for good reason.

If not for Bale's performance, see it for the knife twisting satire of the '80's -- from the clothes, to the hairdos, to the music [I'll never be able to hear Phil Collins in the same way again!] The production value is rich in '80's nostalgia from the "Black and White" set designs to the enormous cellphones [how could we forget those?].

This is a movie that major studios are too afraid to touch. This is film making. Remember film making? When films took you on a ride in someone's life and you would walk away with a piece of their mind? American Psycho doesn't have any real morals or answers, but it shows the deep psychological insecurities some men suffer everyday. Oh yeah, and it was directed by a woman, so all you feminists shut up!

There are numerous things wrong with this otherwise faithfull adaptation in terms of it's structure, plot and ability to portray a strong focus on it's lead character (although heavily watered down). For starters, it is far too tame. You may argue that a lot of the explicit sex and violence in the book was unnecessary but the truth is the Patrick Bateman in the book is obsessed with detail, perfection and routine, so he explains popular culture, food and restaurants and bathing products with the same explicit nature as he describes his killings with his victims and the sex he has with them beforehand. This was missing. I never once heard Patrick Bateman describe what he likes to do to his female victims in sickening detail. Although this was sick it does serve a purpose and would have proven to be a very uniquely cinematic function that would be very disturbing and almost something we have never seen before in a film. Plus the fact it would sidestep the censors as its not physical violence being committed, merely psychological. They lost something unique in this. Also Patrick Bateman in the book does some unbelievably f***** up things to his victims which makes it hard to read. That's why there was all the controversy. The film does NOT have this effect and it should at least have been shocking, and the fact that there was no controversy surrounding the films release sums it up quite well. It's like a book that is really heartbreaking and sad and brings you to tears but the adapted film doesn't make you feel this way- you often think that something important was missing and the film makers have missed the point.

Secondly were the production values. In the book you imagine the locations- Bateman's apartment, his office, the parties they attend, the nightclubs and restaurants, to exceed anything we could ever imagine and associate with 'rich' in reality. In the book they are lavish, far more than we could ever imagine. Now its fairly obvious that this film is relatively low budget and as result it suffers a little by showing us locations we would associate with upper middle class in a TV sitcom, not upper class people who have that sense of materialistic achievement the likes of which we never knew existed. And it's a little too obvious that most of it was shot in a film studio. Many of the characters in the book would frown upon the living conditions of what the characters in the film have.

Thirdly was Patrick Bateman himself. He was never this much of a geek in the book. He was a very powerful, ruthless man, who describes all that sense of materialism that is apparently appealing to most humans, whilst displaying a sense of genuine animosity and sinister ness that you would almost regard as 'inhuman'. A lot of people miss the point of this; sometimes your confused as to whether he is human or some form of demon and it plays with your perceptions a little, thereby proving to be the most disturbing element of the book itself. Patrick Bateman in the book is actually very well respected and his possibly so far at the top of his game its no surprise he appears to be inhuman. In the film he is a run of the mill yuppie that is a bit of a loser compared to his mates. In the film he does what he does 'cause he feels he has no choice, in the book he does what he does 'cause he gets such a kick out of it and is such a spoilt brat that enjoying the most expensive things in life are not enough for him. He is so disgusted with meals, clothes, other products etc that don't cost thousands of dollars and aren't the best it is actually quite unbelievable yet interesting, and you get the sense that he spends a thousand just to walk out his door. You don't get a sense of what an expensive life Patrick Bateman lives in the film. Also in the book he really is a ladies man and wherever he goes he always gets a chicks phone number- which would lead onto inevitable consequences. In the film he often has to rely on hookers- one of which the ugly blonde one, who is so ugly the character in the book wouldn't even look at her (the book version of his character is VERY fussy about his women and wouldn't have sex with her unless she was 100% perfect looking, and NOT one that has the characteristics of a yorkshire terrier). In short, the book version of Patrick Bateman would have eaten the one in the film (literally alive) for breakfast in terms of greed and corruption and wanting the best of everything.

Fourthly was the scope of the film, again a fault with the films production values. In the book the characters get up to far more interesting things- conference meetings, huge parties, rock concerts, opera and so one, in the film all they ever seem to do is go to the same nightclub and restaurants and sit around and talk. As a result the film shows little achievement as to some of the excitement the characters get up to. That's also what was disturbing about the book, it shows a lifestyle that these yuppies have that entices you and almost makes you feel a little envious of what they get up to. In the film the characters lives are just boring, plain and simple.

Last of all (and thank god after all my bitching) the other characters in the book are far more complex and interesting than the 1 dimensional representation we get of them in the film. All of them are obsessed about the same things as Bateman who isn't such a loner and makes you question whether or not they get up to the same things as Bateman despite the fact that they give the impression otherwise. All of them are vain and are obsessed with looking good and getting the best out of everything. Again in the film they are just traditional yuppies.

Well I'm sorry I've bored you after this lengthy comparison but if you have read the book long ago as I have; and expected something special and monumental as the book was, rather than a film that was too small scale and lacked the passion and ambition it so desperately needed, I'm sure you'd agree. There should have been moments in this film that really shocked you into realising what a human being is capable of in terms of committing acts of evil towards others but alas, all we got was a naked guy running down a corridor wearing sneakers and wielding a chainsaw. I feel that the strongest thing about the film is easily Christian Bales' outstanding performance, and you wonder what could have been achieved in the hands of a greater director like Oliver Stone, Brian De Palma or even Martin Scorsese, who had a bigger budget and a little more verve and daringness to do it more justice, rather than Mary Hannon's merely competent but pedestrian and un-cinematic take on the book