American Psycho

Sean Quagmire

Had'nt seen this film in a long while and after watching it again I think its such a classic.
Some of the lines Christian Bale (Patrick Bateman) comes out with had me laughing my head off - he's a nutter. I think this was one of his best performances, one of those roles you can watch again and again.
There are quite a few loose ends in the film but i think that may have been intentional - the ending for expample,

ive read that the director ,Marry Harron, believes that although the book says that it was all in Batemans imagination in the film version he did actually comit the murders

which threw me a bit.

also with the relationships Bateman had, they didnt develop or have any sense of purpose - likewise with Reese Witherspoons character.. they didnt effect the person he was.

Great line i thaught after

he kills Paul and breaks into his apartment to create a cover story

'As I entered the apartment there is a moment of sheer panic when i realise thats Pauls apartment oever looks the park...and is obviously more expensive than mine'

Otis Driftwood

Bales performance is awesome in this but I was left somewhat wanting after viewing this.
Would have rathered a more faithful adaptation but I guess for a relatively mainstream movie that really wouldnt have been possible.
Not a bad movie though,mostly because of Bales performance.

triv88

Yeah he was perfect for that role .Great performances in "The Machinist" and "Harsh times" too

Galvasean

Sean Quagmire wrote: »

There are quite a few loose ends in the film but i think that may have been intentional - the ending for expample,

ive read that the director ,Marry Harron, believes that although the book says that it was all in Batemans imagination in the film version he did actually comit the murders

which threw me a bit.

If anything

Harron's interpretation leans toward the imagination (eg: the disappearing blood trail often mistaken for a continuity error when Bateman is dragging the JPG overnight bag out of the hotel).
The book by Bret Easton Ellis was intentionally ambiguous. However in both cases it is up to the reader/viewer

to decide for themselves how much actually happened

.

Sean Quagmire wrote: »

also with the relationships Bateman had, they didnt develop or have any sense of purpose - likewise with Reese Witherspoons character.. they didnt effect the person he was.

The bit I highlighted in bold is exactly what the piece was aiming for. The characters are all self absorbed and ultimately lacking any real purpose.


More on the film here:

http://pie.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055176032

Sad Professor

As I've said before Bale's terrific but the book is so much better. I thought Harron's take on Ellis was narrow and dull. I'm not sure she liked or understood the book and put too much emphasis on the male chauvinism aspect. It's still a passable adaption and a must-see/own for Bale fans but it's far from great imo.

faceman

im not a big fan of the movie, it's not as sure of itself than the book is. Hence the lack of clarity on some of the plot points.

Crash

To be honest many of the aspects of the book simply can't translate as well into film - for instance, the fact that the way the book is written subconsciously causes most people to skip over the "boring" musical bits for the more violent sections is extremely well done. Can't really get that concept across in a film now can you?

Sean Quagmire

just a note on the music - why is it that when the detective shows him the cd he had baught that day (Heuy Lewis?) Bateman says he isnt into the music and doesnt engage in a conversation about the cd with him?

despite the fact that he was keen to talk about it a few scenes earlier before hitting Paul with an axe...

Climate Expert

I watched this a film a number of times and its one of my favourites. I've always heard people say 'oh the book is so much better' so I picked it up recently. The book is brilliant full of great details and gives you more of Patrick Bateman. But it is not better than teh film. They are both great in their respective media but you cannot compare the two.

From now on I ignore any person who trys to tell me a book is better than a film.

Sean Quagmire

Climate Expert wrote: »

From now on I ignore any person who trys to tell me a book is better than a film.

I learned my lesson when i was advised to read the script of cast away

AnonoBoy

Climate Expert wrote: »

From now on I ignore any person who trys to tell me a book is better than a film.

Wise as ever Climate Expert. One book wasn't better than the movie therefore best not to entertain the notion than any book may be better than the movie.

Zascar

My favourite movie ever!

Climate Expert

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Wise as ever Climate Expert. One book wasn't better than the movie therefore best not to entertain the notion than any book may be better than the movie.

Who said anything about one book your retard?

zAbbo

don't just stare at it, eat it

grames_bond

Sean Quagmire wrote: »

the book says that it was all in Batemans imagination

no it doesn't, in fact the book is more ambiguous than the movie! brilliant book, brilliant movie, just amazing, and even now when i watch it i cant imagine anyone elsbe but bale playing that role (most people know that leo dicaprio was originally meant to play bateman! loved it!

Climate Expert

no it doesn't

It does actually say it early on in the book and quite explicitly.

However at other points in the book you are lead to believe that this is not the case.

FX Meister

Sean Quagmire wrote: »

I learned my lesson when i was advised to read the script of cast away

That was a terrible film, why would you expect the script to be any good?

FX Meister

Climate Expert wrote: »

Who said anything about one book your retard?

You did, when you said "From now on I ignore any person who trys to tell me a book is better than a film". You thought the book wasn't as good as the film and will ignore anyone who tells you otherwise in the future. And just to put things straight, this book is better than the film. And this is also true in most cases. FACT

speedboatchase

Just cool it with the anti-Book remarks Climate Expert.


Also, the IMDB board for American Psycho is one of the funniest things on the web, have a look at this un and read a few pages:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0144084/board/thread/118474790

AnonoBoy

Climate Expert wrote: »

Who said anything about one book your retard?

Eh.... what?

speedboatchase

AnonoBoy, I want you to... dance a little

Climate Expert

FX Meister wrote: »

You did, when you said "From now on I ignore any person who trys to tell me a book is better than a film".

Still no mention of one book. My opinion is based on many book to film adaptations.

AnonoBoy

Climate Expert wrote: »

Still no mention of one book. My opinion is based on many book to film adaptations.

But since you only mention one book in your post the implication is that it was this movie adaptation which fuelled your decision.

Granted you didn't say the words "one book" but you're just being pedantic really about that.

Climate Expert

AnonoBoy wrote: »

But since you only mention one book in your post the implication is that it was this movie adaptation which fuelled your decision.

Granted you didn't say the words "one book" but you're just being pedantic really about that.

No the first guy was being the arsehole making assumptions.

Anyway I've just started on Rules of Attraction (the book). Should I expect the film to be any better?

Galvasean

Climate Expert wrote: »

Anyway I've just started on Rules of Attraction (the book). Should I expect the film to be any better?

The film is great fun but the book is pure genius.

Patrick Bateman makes a small appearance in the book

Lots of extra stuff happens in the book that really ads extra depth to the characters which just wasn't in the film.

HalloweenJack

Sean Quagmire wrote: »

just a note on the music - why is it that when the detective shows him the cd he had baught that day (Heuy Lewis?) Bateman says he isnt into the music and doesnt engage in a conversation about the cd with him?

despite the fact that he was keen to talk about it a few scenes earlier before hitting Paul with an axe...

You answered it there. To avoid suspicion, he doesn't mention it.

American Psycho is much better in book form, it's probably one of my favourite books ever. There's so much more to get from it.

The film's very good too, mainly down to Chirstian Bale. It's a brilliant performance from him. There are some other good turns in the film but having read the book, the film's nowhere near it.

kelator

Liked the 1st film. Sequal though:eek:

Galvasean

kelator wrote: »

Liked the 1st film. Sequal though:eek:

Shh! there was no sequel...

¬_¬

grames_bond

Climate Expert wrote: »

It does actually say it early on in the book and quite explicitly.
However at other points in the book you are lead to believe that this is not the case.

what?! were did you read that?! the point is you dont know if he did or didnt!

speedboatchase

He did it. The point of the book is that he can get away with it because everyone is so vacuous and self-obsessed they would never believe that he did it (people choosing to not here when spells it out at dinner, in the nightclub etc because they just assume they misheard) and since every looks the same; Paul Allen thinks Patrick is Marcus, Patricks lawyer thinks he met Paul Allen. The scene where Patrick goes to Allens apartment is many months after the murder, not explained fully in the film. Scenes like the ATM talking are just examples of Bateman losing his mind, like when he imagines a talking penis on the Shelly Winters show in the book - however he didn't imagine the murder, he just managed to get away from them and in the end feels his bloodlust will get worse because his society has allowed him to get away scot-free. Really, it's a moot point whether or not he did it.

Also I think the film is a bit better than the book, mainly because of Bale's performance but also because it's wraps a strong narrative around the proceedings and re-arranges events into a more entertaining fashion, for example the Paul Allen murder is much better with Huey Lewis accompanyment, rather than a chapter devoted to the band.

FX Meister

Climate Expert wrote: »

No the first guy was being the arsehole making assumptions.

Anyway I've just started on Rules of Attraction (the book). Should I expect the film to be any better?

Do you know how to read or are you listening to the audio books?

speedboatchase

Stop being arses and ruining the thread of a great movie!

Anyways... I'm leaving. I've assessed the situation, and I'm going

MagicMarker

speedboatchase wrote: »

Stop being arses and ruining the thread of a great movie!

Anyways... I'm leaving. I've assessed the situation, and I'm going

Need to return some video tapes?

speedboatchase

Yeah I rented Africa, Brave Africa. It was... a laugh riot

dr.bollocko

It's hard for Ellis' fans to see any adaptation of his books without it turning into a slagging match.
That said I think rules of attraction was a pretty good interpretation, particularly because of clever use of camera work and cinematography.
The book of American Psycho, however, eclipses the movie. The book is a sprawling diatribe of an entire generation and is meant as a harsh satire that is very of it's time. The movie was more of an exploration into Bateman himself, not so much as a product of his surroundings. It was an interesting film, well done, but when you look at the source, I don't think that what the book captures could ever be captured in a movie.

And it didn't explicitly state anywhere in the book that Bateman did any of it.

The bit with the rat though.
Whoah.

grames_bond

dr.bollocko wrote: »

It's hard for Ellis' fans to see any adaptation of his books without it turning into a slagging match.
That said I think rules of attraction was a pretty good interpretation, particularly because of clever use of camera work and cinematography.
The book of American Psycho, however, eclipses the movie. The book is a sprawling diatribe of an entire generation and is meant as a harsh satire that is very of it's time. The movie was more of an exploration into Bateman himself, not so much as a product of his surroundings. It was an interesting film, well done, but when you look at the source, I don't think that what the book captures could ever be captured in a movie.

And it didn't explicitly state anywhere in the book that Bateman did any of it.

The bit with the rat though.
Whoah.

spot on!

i loved rules aswell, movie was so honest to the book, and if they ever let avery out of jail the movie version of glamorama is gonna be great!

back onto american psycho, the ONLY bit of the movie Elis didnt like was batemans moonwalk, you can understand that if you read the bateman from the book he doesnt moonwalk!

speedboatchase

About the real/not real debate, got this from the IMDB FAQ, the page itself is very interesting and well worth a look. Not sure if every line can be backed up with sources but its too late for me to bother looking -

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0144084/faq

Extract:

Did it really happen, or was it all a dream?

The answer is that yes, Patrick Bateman did commit the murders. His peers (who often confused his identity with others anyway) were so shallow and focused on themselves that they didn't even notice.

Bret Easton Ellis, the author of the original book, argues that if none of the murders actually happened, that the entire point of the novel would be rendered moot. He has stated that the novel was intended to satirize the shallow, impersonal mindset of yuppie America in the late 1980s.

Director Mary Harron (in a Charlie Rose interview) and co-screenwriter Guinevere Turner (in the DVD commentary) have both stated explicitly that the murders were in fact real. They consider it a major failure of the film that viewers are confused by this point.

Some fans still contest that the actions in the film were all fragments of Patrick Bateman's warped mentality (which coincides with his delusion at the ATM machine and his improbable murderous rampage). Bateman, using the sketchbook in his desk that his secretary finds, imagined all of the grotesque murders as an escape from the falsities of the world around him, and his imagined world turns out to be just as warped and twisted as his everyday yuppie life.

tech77

grames_bond wrote: »

no it doesn't, in fact the book is more ambiguous than the movie! brilliant book, brilliant movie, just amazing, and even now when i watch it i cant imagine anyone elsbe but bale playing that role (most people know that leo dicaprio was originally meant to play bateman! loved it!

Yeah, can't imagine anyone else playing him either.
Bale's amazing in it.

speedboatchase

Originally Posted by tech77
Yeah, can't imagine anyone else playing him either.
Bale's amazing in it.

Your compliment was sufficient, Tech77

MagicMarker

speedboatchase wrote: »

About the real/not real debate, got this from the IMDB FAQ, the page itself is very interesting and well worth a look. Not sure if every line can be backed up with sources but its too late for me to bother looking -

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0144084/faq

Extract:

Did it really happen, or was it all a dream?

The answer is that yes, Patrick Bateman did commit the murders. His peers (who often confused his identity with others anyway) were so shallow and focused on themselves that they didn't even notice.

Bret Easton Ellis, the author of the original book, argues that if none of the murders actually happened, that the entire point of the novel would be rendered moot. He has stated that the novel was intended to satirize the shallow, impersonal mindset of yuppie America in the late 1980s.

Director Mary Harron (in a Charlie Rose interview) and co-screenwriter Guinevere Turner (in the DVD commentary) have both stated explicitly that the murders were in fact real. They consider it a major failure of the film that viewers are confused by this point.

Some fans still contest that the actions in the film were all fragments of Patrick Bateman's warped mentality (which coincides with his delusion at the ATM machine and his improbable murderous rampage). Bateman, using the sketchbook in his desk that his secretary finds, imagined all of the grotesque murders as an escape from the falsities of the world around him, and his imagined world turns out to be just as warped and twisted as his everyday yuppie life.

I thought it was real.. to a point.

It is very confusing though, for instance

when he returns to Paul Allen's apartment and there are no bodies there and the real estate lady denies that it's even Paul Allen's place!

I think it's scenes like these that confuse people, as well as the last scene obviously.

So, i think some of the murders are real, but not all of them. How do i know this?.... Haven't a fúcking clue!

FionnMatthew

MagicMarker wrote: »

I thought it was real.. to a point.

It is very confusing though, for instance

when he returns to Paul Allen's apartment and there are no bodies there and the real estate lady denies that it's even Paul Allen's place!

I think it's scenes like these that confuse people, as well as the last scene obviously.

So, i think some of the murders are real, but not all of them. How do i know this?.... Haven't a fúcking clue!

The real estate lady is covering up in order to prevent the value of the apartment block from plummeting, possibly on behalf of the other inhabitants.

The Paul Allen denial comes at the overarching confusion about who the hell is who throughout the whole movie.

Maybe you know this, though, I guess.

Galvasean

Usually when asked if the events of American Psycho were real or not Bret Easton Ellis remarks something along the lines of "What part of the word ambiguous do you people not understand?"

Anyway,

not that BEE actually wrote the book himself...

Zascar

http://www.altx.com/interviews/bret.easton.ellis.html

Wreck

Galvasean wrote: »

Anyway,

not that BEE actually wrote the book himself...

What do you mean?

grames_bond

MagicMarker wrote: »

I thought it was real.. to a point.

It is very confusing though, for instance

when he returns to Paul Allen's apartment and there are no bodies there and the real estate lady denies that it's even Paul Allen's place!

I think it's scenes like these that confuse people, as well as the last scene obviously.

well some people believe that the murders were commited but bateman got away with it because people thaught it was paul allen, and bateman imagined killing paul allen who was sent away (sent down/ to a safe house) which is why real estate lady got scared when bateman mentioned his name!

just proves that the books "real" meaning, is totally up to you! hence ambiguous!

Wreck wrote: »

What do you mean?

you havent read lunar park have you? (B.E.E's latest book) he says in it that

he didnt write american psycho, patrick bateman did! ellis would go to sleep and wake up with chapters written! this book wanted to be written, had to be written and bateman wrote it!

Galvasean

Wreck wrote: »

What do you mean?

Basically what grames_bond said.

of course in Lunar Park it's 'Bret Easton Ellis', not Bret Easton Ellis.

A reference too far perhaps?

tech77

speedboatchase wrote: »

Your compliment was sufficient, Tech77

eh?

speedboatchase

Ah just watch the film again

grames_bond

Galvasean wrote: »

Basically what grames_bond said.

of course in Lunar Park it's 'Bret Easton Ellis', not Bret Easton Ellis.

A reference too far perhaps?

i got the reference dont worry!

speedboatchase wrote: »

Ah just watch the film again

i also got the "compliment" reference \o/ woo go me!!

Dave!

Best scene

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POl3eD6IJ7A

Gotta love Bale's dance-moves

I liked the film alot, haven't read the book though. Bale is one of my favourite actors at the moment (The Prestige and the Machinist come to mind. Steer clear of Rescue Dawn though), and I thought he was very good in this.

MagicMarker

Lets not forget..

Equilibrium
Harsh Times
Empire of the Sun
both Batmans

The man is just a legend of our time tbh, no exaggeration.