American Psycho

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.

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

'American Psycho' is NOT a slasher movie. It is a depiction, a fantasy if you will, of the life of modern man and his place in society.

Nothing is enough. Money, sex, social stature, there is always someone else who has more and everyone else expect from you to try harder for even more.

This movie is about eliminating competition the easy way. By killing your opponents. By eating your sexual partners. By destroying everyone around you.

'American Psycho' retains the balance between this psychotic state, a chilling thriller and a very funny movie.

The scenes that show Patrick playing music for his guests are absolutely hilarious, as he comments very seriously on records by artists such as Whitney Houston, Phil Collins and Huey Lewis & the News. The funny thing is that he chooses the most commercial or sold out records of these artists, to explain how much better they are compared to their previous, more artistic work. Another message of the state of the receivers of commercial art.

You can analyze 'American Psycho' for hours. It can be perceived both as a deep and a fun movie. Even if you don't like the story, you will love Christian Bale's excellent performance.

Enjoy.

10/10

Now it all makes sense. Christian Bale was born to play horror characters. I couldn't understand why I was so , so, afraid of him even in films like "Velvet Goldmine" He is a poster boy for putrid souls in elegant wrapping. In "American Psycho" - a film that deserves much more attention than it's got - he is absolutely terrific. Totally believable. I could sense his delight in playing a monster of this kind. Interestingly enough this manicured monster seems to be asking for sympathy, imagine the nerve! But Christian Bale succeeds in showing us a face we (I) hadn't quite seen before and yet we (I) accept without question. He should have gotten an Oscar nomination but, fortunately, he didn't.

This is a frightening and wildly satiric look into the mentality of the high-flying Reaganomics 1980s as the American Dream turned into the psychotic American Nightmare. The film will probably turn as many people off as are entertained by this weird journey that is a slightly more organized cousin of FEAR & LOATHING IN LAS VEGAS.

Christian Bale is amazingly energetic and even sympathetic as the deranged, soul-less creature who values nothing but surface appearances. We are given a hauting roller-coaster ride through a comedy of terrors that is the mind of this being who seems human but isn't quite sure himself. In fact, he doesn't even know who or what he is.

Is he insane? Are we? That's the joker in the gamble. That's the riddle of the sphinx that we are left to solve -- if there is a solution.