IMDb रेटिंग
3.7/10
19 हज़ार
आपकी रेटिंग
अपनी भाषा में प्लॉट जोड़ेंA girl named Rachael Newman has developed a taste for murder and will stop at nothing to become a college professor's assistant.A girl named Rachael Newman has developed a taste for murder and will stop at nothing to become a college professor's assistant.A girl named Rachael Newman has developed a taste for murder and will stop at nothing to become a college professor's assistant.
- निर्देशक
- लेखक
- स्टार
Geraint Wyn Davies
- Daniels
- (as Geraint Wyn-Davies)
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
You can just imagine the scene in some movie producers office :
" You know that movie set in the 1980s where Christian Bale kills his colleagues ? "
" Yeah vaguely "
" Well I just wrote the sequel "
" Is that the one where both Bale's character and Bale himself don't make an appearance , instead we have a teenage bimbo bumping off people she doesn't like ? "
" Yeah "
" Then why's your screenplay called TEENAGE BIMBO GOES ON KILLING SPREE ? Shouldn't either the words American or Psycho appear if it's a sequel ? "
" Hey I never thought of that "
"And it's probably illegal to call something a sequel if it has absolutely no connection with the original movie "
" Thanks for pointing that out boss . I'll rewrite the opening scene even if it contradicts the first movie . Let's do lunch "
I'm sort of guessing the producers had what's known in Britain as " A liquid lunch " or possibly they had something even stronger . As many people on this site have pointed out AP2:AAG not only hints that not only does it have nothing in common with the original movie it also seems to contradict AP . The story centres around Rachael Newman who would have been about four years old during the events of the first film . Why did anyone have to use the character of Patrick Bateman to set up the story here ? It's not even a plausible set up and it's not a plausible story in the first place . Perhaps the most ridiculous thing is how on earth Rachael would be physically able to commit these crimes because Mila Kunis doesn't look an inch taller than five foot , doesn't look an ounce heavier than ninety pounds and yet is able to commit acts of extreme violence with a sharp object . Realising this unlikely scenario the director wisely often cuts to a different scene when Rachael bumps off a victim . But this doesn't stop other massive plot holes like the police not checking for DNA when the victim of a car crash is found at the end of the movie
AP2:AAG is yet another cynical attempt to sell a stupid movie as a " Black comedy " but this is done in an even more cynical manner since it's a serial killer screenplay marketed as the sequel to a totally unrelated movie . It might have funny moments but these I'm sure are totally unintentional . If you saw the original you will hate this , if you haven't you will still hate this . Perhaps the motive behind it was to make the original appear much better than it actually was . If so then the producers have succeeded
" You know that movie set in the 1980s where Christian Bale kills his colleagues ? "
" Yeah vaguely "
" Well I just wrote the sequel "
" Is that the one where both Bale's character and Bale himself don't make an appearance , instead we have a teenage bimbo bumping off people she doesn't like ? "
" Yeah "
" Then why's your screenplay called TEENAGE BIMBO GOES ON KILLING SPREE ? Shouldn't either the words American or Psycho appear if it's a sequel ? "
" Hey I never thought of that "
"And it's probably illegal to call something a sequel if it has absolutely no connection with the original movie "
" Thanks for pointing that out boss . I'll rewrite the opening scene even if it contradicts the first movie . Let's do lunch "
I'm sort of guessing the producers had what's known in Britain as " A liquid lunch " or possibly they had something even stronger . As many people on this site have pointed out AP2:AAG not only hints that not only does it have nothing in common with the original movie it also seems to contradict AP . The story centres around Rachael Newman who would have been about four years old during the events of the first film . Why did anyone have to use the character of Patrick Bateman to set up the story here ? It's not even a plausible set up and it's not a plausible story in the first place . Perhaps the most ridiculous thing is how on earth Rachael would be physically able to commit these crimes because Mila Kunis doesn't look an inch taller than five foot , doesn't look an ounce heavier than ninety pounds and yet is able to commit acts of extreme violence with a sharp object . Realising this unlikely scenario the director wisely often cuts to a different scene when Rachael bumps off a victim . But this doesn't stop other massive plot holes like the police not checking for DNA when the victim of a car crash is found at the end of the movie
AP2:AAG is yet another cynical attempt to sell a stupid movie as a " Black comedy " but this is done in an even more cynical manner since it's a serial killer screenplay marketed as the sequel to a totally unrelated movie . It might have funny moments but these I'm sure are totally unintentional . If you saw the original you will hate this , if you haven't you will still hate this . Perhaps the motive behind it was to make the original appear much better than it actually was . If so then the producers have succeeded
Rumor has it that Lions Gate Films took an old, un-used script and tweaked it just a little bit to make it a sequel to Universal's 2000 controversial hit "American Psycho." It's easy to see why this went straight to video. Played off as more of a dark comedy than the first one, and severely lacking any gore, nudity or intensity, this is a very weak follow-up and leaves a lot to be desired. Mila Kunis, as gorgeous as she may be, was absolutely annoying during her narrations - I couldn't help but think of "Family Guy" the whole time! I seriously almost took the tape out of the VCR several times, I just got so frustrated. This movie is very low-quality and was obviously made with a shoe-string budget -- which isn't a bad thing, as long the filmmakers know what they are doing, but director Morgan J. Freeman (no, not the guy from "Shawshank Redemption") doesn't seem to take the material seriously enough to make it work (there's a lot of interviews out there of him trashing the first film and the people who made it). Overall, it plays more like a made-for-TV movie and a very cheesy, bad attempt at dark comedy. A few twists here and there might perk your interest, but other than that, this girl is D.O.A.
2/10
2/10
The makes of this film must not have needed BEE permission to make this sequel because I don't know how BEE could have let Hollywood trash the concept of his great book, American Psycho. This sequel was nothing but some B slasher movie with a bad story and really weak killings because no gore or blood is shown. It has nothing to do with the first film. To tie it in so they could use the title American Psycho, they make up the way Patrick Bateman died by saying a young girl was there and killed him as he killed her babysitter. Later on, some ridiculous story line ties the dead babysitter to one of the girl's college teachers, so we know why she is so obsessed with him. The only cool scene was when the girl gets this dead body out of her closet with flies all around after it has been there for months. Now that was gross!
FINAL VERDICT: Bad. Don't watch it.
FINAL VERDICT: Bad. Don't watch it.
American Psycho II (2002)
BOMB (out of 4)
In name only sequel to the cult film has Mila Kunis playing Rachel, a young woman who as a child killed the serial killer Patrick Bateman. Flash forward several years and Rachel is in college trying to become a FBI agent but her goal of becoming her professor's (William Shatner) assistant means that she will have to turn into a killer to knock off the competition. American PSYCHO II is just a poor cash-in on the cult success of the first film but I really don't knock it for that. As a fan of horror films I've come accustom to cheap knock-offs but the problem with this film is that it's just not nearly as clever as it thinks it is. The biggest problem for me is the entire tone of the picture, which seems to be wanting to wink at the viewer. Rachel is shown as just a sweet girl next door type and we get some of the worst narration that you're ever going to hear throughout the movie as we move from one killing to the next. This narration really was some of the worst that I've ever heard and it was quite annoying. Even worse is the music score, which also tries to wink at the viewer with its silly light touch. I'm really not sure what the producers were trying to do with this picture but it's certainly a complete failure from the opening scene to the last. Was this meant to be a spoof of horror pictures? Perhaps but it's certainly not funny and as I said before, the picture isn't nearly as clever as it thinks. Even worse is the fact that Kunis is just downright awful here and it's easy to see why she doesn't want anyone to bring the picture up. Everything from her line delivery to the way she shows any sort of emotion is just bad. Yes she's hot but that's certainly not enough to carry the picture. Shatner is pretty much just cashing a paycheck and adds very little to the picture. Even as a horror film this thing doesn't work as the death scenes are all forgettable and there's just not enough sleaze to make it entertaining.
BOMB (out of 4)
In name only sequel to the cult film has Mila Kunis playing Rachel, a young woman who as a child killed the serial killer Patrick Bateman. Flash forward several years and Rachel is in college trying to become a FBI agent but her goal of becoming her professor's (William Shatner) assistant means that she will have to turn into a killer to knock off the competition. American PSYCHO II is just a poor cash-in on the cult success of the first film but I really don't knock it for that. As a fan of horror films I've come accustom to cheap knock-offs but the problem with this film is that it's just not nearly as clever as it thinks it is. The biggest problem for me is the entire tone of the picture, which seems to be wanting to wink at the viewer. Rachel is shown as just a sweet girl next door type and we get some of the worst narration that you're ever going to hear throughout the movie as we move from one killing to the next. This narration really was some of the worst that I've ever heard and it was quite annoying. Even worse is the music score, which also tries to wink at the viewer with its silly light touch. I'm really not sure what the producers were trying to do with this picture but it's certainly a complete failure from the opening scene to the last. Was this meant to be a spoof of horror pictures? Perhaps but it's certainly not funny and as I said before, the picture isn't nearly as clever as it thinks. Even worse is the fact that Kunis is just downright awful here and it's easy to see why she doesn't want anyone to bring the picture up. Everything from her line delivery to the way she shows any sort of emotion is just bad. Yes she's hot but that's certainly not enough to carry the picture. Shatner is pretty much just cashing a paycheck and adds very little to the picture. Even as a horror film this thing doesn't work as the death scenes are all forgettable and there's just not enough sleaze to make it entertaining.
Hello, okay before all of the American Psycho fans get really bent out of shape let me start by saying, the first American Psycho. It sucked! I hated it! I went to the movies and paid eight bucks to go see that piece of crap. Really badly written! The first one had the psycho killing his victims, while bringing up the musical talents of people, listening to their albums. Okay, now that part was minorly entertaining, at least enough to laugh at. Then, I had to watch parts like when he chased one victim down the hall of an apartment, with a chainsaw roaring. What a load of crap! Give me a bring. As if nobody in the whole apartment complex had heard it, while she's running and screaming. So now, this brings me to the sequel. First, I was surprised to see one of the cast memebers of that 70's show. Almost laughable. Not that she is a bad actor, she's really talented, just unexpected. At first, her character came off slightly annoying and I didn't know if I was going to like the movie or not. As the movie went on, there wasn't too much of a plot. Basically, she wanted to work aside William Shatner's character, because he studied serial killers. Those who got in her way, in her opinion had to die. She was going to get the job and that she that. There was no alternative. I must say by the end of the movie I found myself enjoying the movie, laughing and actually at sick as it sounds cheering her on as she knocked one person off and then the next. Overall, I had a good time and I didn't feel that I wasted my time. And as open as they left this movie, it more than beat the horrible ending of the first one I had to endure.
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाThe film began production with no association to American Psycho (2000), and it wasn't decided to repurpose it until it had already started filming. Bret Easton Ellis, the author of the original novel, claims the studio wanted to include a serial killer subplot in The Rules of Attraction (2002) but the filmmakers objected to the idea, leading to this film.
- गूफ़Even if the real Rachel burned up in the car with Robert the autopsy would conform the bodies were already dead making it impossible to conclude they died in the fire.
- भाव
Rachael Newman: [after strangling Brian with a condom] Ribbed, for her pleasure.
- कनेक्शनEdited into American Psycho 2: Deleted Scenes (2002)
- साउंडट्रैकIn the Meantime
Performed by The Dirtmitts (as Dirtmitts)
Written by The Dirtmitts (as Dirtmitts)
Courtesy of Sonic Unyon Records
Published by Sonic Unyon Distribution
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
विवरण
बॉक्स ऑफ़िस
- बजट
- $1,00,00,000(अनुमानित)
- चलने की अवधि
- 1 घं 28 मि(88 min)
- रंग
- ध्वनि मिश्रण
- पक्ष अनुपात
- 1.85 : 1
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें