American Psycho 2

As a movie in its own right, I enjoyed this, but I can't say it felt anything like the first "American Psycho". If it weren't for the sporadic reference-by- name of Patrick Bateman, there would really be nothing to tie the two movies together. So if you're looking for a movie that seems to -deserve- the title "American Psycho II", don't bother with this one, it will be a disappointment.

Even so, while it's not what I'd call "juicy" or truly "great", it is watchable. Mild on gore, heavy on psychopathology - it maintains something of a dark, gritty "Lifetime Special Movie" feel throughout. I might call it a "high- end time-waster" type. :-)

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

For those that are huge fans of the Christian Bale masterpiece should whole heartily avoid this film at all costs. There is nothing, I repeat, nothing connecting these two films together outside of a title and a slight beginning reference to a man that never should have existed in the first place – one elusive Patrick Bateman. From the beginning the story makes no sense, supposed serial killer Patrick Bateman kills again, leaving a small girl to finish what he started. From that point forward, she decides to do whatever it takes to kill/capture all the serial killers of the world – thus becoming one in the process. Again, what should have just been in Bateman's mind destroys the concept that this film is balanced on – so, all we are left with are views, images, goofy music, and acting that honestly came from a Cracker Jack box. Our lead this time is Mila Kunis, of "That 70s Show fame", jumping or should I say "bubbling" right out of her character on FOX to a nearly identical character for this film. Her goal for the film, become William Shatner's teaching assistant so that she can get into Quantico and thus fulfilling her dreams to capture serial killers. What actually happens in the film is that she kills everyone in her way (everyone else is oblivious to the pile of bodies) to get that respected position. Nobody is safe, and as we prepare for the ending, a twist so predictable is thrown our way that we could care less about her, the story, or the semi-terrifying ending. Our only hope is that they decide to end the series with this film. What could the story be next? Patrick Bateman's ghost returns for more non-existent killing?

From every angle of this film, I was disgraced. I was such an enormous fan of the original film (the insanity, the characters, the violence), that to be handed a stick of bubble gum after eating veal just felt insulting. There are those that actually enjoyed this film, which just boggles my mind. How could anyone, either a fan of the original or not, enjoy this cookie-cutter film? In the commentary, director Morgan J. Freeman even admits to being a "director-for-hire", which means the story was already in place all he needed to do was put that "direct-to-video" feel to it, and it was ready for packaging, sealing, and delivery to those unsuspecting viewers who were tied into just the title. Nothing worked in this film. The music took me away from the horrors that were happening, and made me feel that I was camping at a carnival. The selection made me want to shake my hips and chew some bubble gum (odd, this is transforming into a theme to this film). The cinematography was juvenile at best. Errors erupted with leaps and bounds, and again, during the commentary the director wasn't afraid to point them out. From these low points, the only place to go was further down with acting that somehow connected well to the carnival music. Shatner tried his best, but just couldn't pull off the womanizing teacher with connections to Quantico. The chemistry between him and the other ladies felt scripted and old. In just a short twenty days, one probably doesn't have the chance to get to know the rest of your cast, so just read your lines and pray for the best. For those wondering how Kunis did with this role, just listen to her in the commentary. Pathetic would be a good word, amateur would be another, and just to give you that third scoop, she was unbelievable at best. Freeman attempted to make her this convincing detail oriented killer, with a killer body, but the result was anything but scary – in fact – one could go so far to say that it was "killer funny". Can I say it one more time? Nothing in this film worked. I don't mean to be lacking detail, but from the initial scene it was obvious that we were on a downward path – did Morgan J. Freeman even see the original?

I have no sympathy for this film. "American Psycho II: All American Girl" was a debauchery to the series, to the words that Bret Easton Ellis put on the page, and to cinema itself. I have no respect for those that say that this should not be paired with the original, but instead should just be watched on its own. The original "American Psycho" was well acted, nail-bitingly genre bending, and continually asks me to question the value of a male dominated workplace on Wall Street. In the original, the question became what happens to a man that has everything – in the sequel, the question transforms into "What would a girl do to get everything?" The themes are even the same. This film is a prime example of Hollywood looking to capitalize on a cult film by merely selling the title. Oh, what a horrid experiment gone wrong.

If you wanted a cheap version of the original, I suggest this one. It contains no artistic value, no moral thought-provoking moments, and definitely nothing that could be called unique or creative. The word original was never in Morgan J. Freeman's dialog. Listen to the audio commentary if you don't believe me, these Freeman and Kunis give hope to the aspiring director (who doesn't mind selling out for a paycheck) as well as a disgraceful taste to the human race.

This was cheap – with a capital C.

Grade: * out of *****

The summary says it all. While this film would have worked good under another title, it sucks as an AP sequel. I watched this movie before the first, and I have to say that I was quite impressed. I enjoyed the performances, the direction and the twist in the storyline. So I rented the first movie. I watched the first one, and again was very impressed. Very clever and very mind boggling... BUT it didn't, couldn't and wouldn't (no matter which way you think about it) link to the second. "American Psycho" isn't about killing people. It's about the mind. "American Psycho 2" is about... killing people, and it tries to make out that AP was too.... The more you try and link them together, the more they move apart. Enjoy these as two seperate movies. It isn't true that if you liked the first one you'll hate the second and vicer versa. You can like both movies, as long as you think of them in that way.

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.