I think its good. Perhaps you must be older and have been some time in the "buisness world" to get whats the movie all about.
Bale is excellent but the book is better to.
7/10

I watched this with my friend Adriana last night and the movie was good and makes you question if the murders are real or not. I think they were real though (I think he exaggerated with the "Feed me a stray cat" and maybe the car blowing up) because I think it's supposed to say yuppies are so identical that you can't even tell the difference between them (which is why the Lawyer thought he saw Paul Allen in London). The lady in the new apartment obviously found the dead bodies and knew Patrick Bateman killed those people, but the movie is about greed/apathy and thus she won't tell anyone because it might hurt business. It was a really good movie and I though Christian Bale was perfect as Bateman. 8/10

After all of this hype, I was expecting something great. I couldn't finish it, it bored me to death :wink:

A-

This one, without a doubt, is one of the best book-to-film transitions ever created. The funny thing is that the movie isn't even too faithful to the content and the storyline of the book. It just picks up main plot points. The book itself, while a blast to read, could have never been adapted absolutely faithfully. The movie would have been banned worldwide Nonetheless, the movie manages what only very few novel adaptations have managed so far. It completely captures the spirit of the book. Bret Easton Ellis' vision is delivered on-screen as perfectly as it could have been possible. Christian Bale is a PERFECT Patrick Bateman. You think Bale was great in Batman Begins and Equilibrium? Then check this out. This is his career-defining performance. The movie is still not perfect and the ending is somewhat of a let-down, but as a cinematic adaptation of what is probably one of the most controversal literary works ever, it works on all levels.

An interesting film. Christian Bale was excellent, but the movie itself was kind of...odd...but good. B-

A very tough film to grade. On one hand the social context was quite well done, and Christian Bale delivers a solid performance as Bateman. On the other hand, the production values are very poor and the film lags constantly. The ultra-violent content, while controversial, is also a negative point as it is poorly handled by the director.

Overall, a dissapointment, though not a disaster of a film. C.

Hehe


; ) ; )

This movie has PG-13 violence...

Umm...no.

You butchered my comments. I understood everything but the ending.

In comparison to the book, the movie has G-rated violence. I'm not kidding. Actually, it was very subtle in this movie.

lol well I thought this was gonna be a gore fest (which it wasn't sadly) but I've seen more violence in Mummy Returns and Pearl Harbor.

Really? Not a chance, as The Mummy Returns had an entirely different stylized form of violence. American Psycho had very realistic violence, though at times they did cut away, which was the only thing that kept the film from an NC-17 rating.

Wow, I really wonder what you'd have thought of the book.

Moreover, see movies like House of Wax or Saw or Kill Bill...those usually didn't cut away and yet didn't get an NC-17 rating. I think the movie was far off an NC-17 rating. It got Cert. 16 in Germany (which means that you're only allowed to see that when you're 16 or older) while movies like Sin City, House of Wax, Saw, Kill Bill and Freddy vs. Jason all got Cert. 18.

Yeah, I mean sure a man gets axed in the head but all it shows is the blood go to his face (I WANTED TO SEE MORE!! NOOO!!!), I mean that's PG-13 right there (should be). And when he drops the chainsaw it doesn't show it (PG-13 right there), when he stabs the hobo there is no blood. If I made the rating system this movie would have been PG-13 for violence, sexual content, nudity and language. This is definitely not R material to me.

Sorry but that's just sick and it would have detracted from the concept of the movie. Sure it was violent but it was more of a (failed) social commentary not a violence extravaganza.

If you want that type of film go rent Faces of Death or the like.

I might get the book just to see. Heh.

But yeah according to the MPAA it was edited from an NC-17. Remember it also had male and female nudity (sustained sequences) and a good deal of language which alone would have given it an "R" rating. Add in the sex scenes and a little violence and you are treading on a "NC-17" rating.

And no, in no way could this have been rated "PG-13", it was far to violent.

American Psycho was rated R much more for the sexual scenes and the perversity than the violence. The violence itself was very tame. The context of ther violence wasn't.

Yes but according to everything I've read its violent content was significantly reduced for the re-rating.

Well, if it was made nearly similar to the book, it'd be rated NC-30.

No, actually it'd be banned from all countries in the world.

I've downloaded some Faces of Death clips... they're awesome!!!!!

I heard Patrick puts cheese on a girls vagina and makes a rat eat it? Is that true? Doesn't he also stab a kid at the zoo?

Hehe, yes, but that's a very tame description.

I bought the book too! Now I can't wait to read it... is it good, funny, boring, etc? What would you give it out of 10.