April 12, 2001

5:52 AM

And so my jaw dropped, be looking out for a straight to video release of American Psycho II.
posted by tiaka (22 comments total)

Anyway, I'm looking by the production being in Canada, Freeman directing a teener-bopper cast and all to be an episode of Dawson's Creek.

"We have an opportunity to launch young actors..."

Is it wrong to want to hit the producer with Ellis' book and then nail gun cap him?
posted by tiaka at 5:58 AM on April 12, 2001

Bleh. I saw American Psycho and wanted my money back.. and I saw it for free. Not a movie I enjoyed at all, and I definitely didn't think it merited a sequel.
posted by zempf at 6:33 AM on April 12, 2001

The real problem with the American Psycho film was that it was such a let down after reading the book. The book is a grotesque a dark story that the movie just pulls some (not the best, or should I say worst) scenes from.

Now that I think about it, I should have avoided the movie all together. The pictures that the book put into my head should have been enough.
posted by stew560 at 7:28 AM on April 12, 2001

Now that I think about it, I should have avoided the movie all together. The pictures that the book put into my head should have been enough.

indeed.

i thought bale embodied well the "look-n-feel" of pat bateman -- of that i was greatly satisfied with the movie. otherwise, it was a turd.

the book is wonderful.
posted by Stagecoach at 8:30 AM on April 12, 2001

Sort of off topic here:

I haven't read the book, but I saw the movie and liked it. Soooo....... Should I read the book? or will having seen the movie ruin it for me. I was thinking about picking something up this weekend.
posted by y6y6y6 at 9:56 AM on April 12, 2001

If you still have any desire to, read the book, y6. Aside from the gruesomeness (and oh, is it gruesome), the whole apathetic NY decadence-of-privilege thing cuts a bit harder and rings a bit truer than in the movie. Think Tom Wolfe or McInerney - it's in that stylistic neighborhood.

And I found it funny as hell.
posted by chicobangs at 10:27 AM on April 12, 2001

Tiaka: Bodoni is a "Roman typeface," inasmuch as that phrase means anything. And how could someone tell if a business card was "letterpress-printed"? This is Scott Stowell the designer? So many questions.
posted by rodii at 10:32 AM on April 12, 2001

I agree with stew560, Stagecoach, & chicobangs as to the superiority of the book to the movie. So I'd also say, y6, yes you should give the book a try. Part of the book's brilliance lies in the careful repetitiousness of the style--for instance, the way every character is described exclusively in terms of which designer garments he/she wears, & the way each time the characters go to dinner, it is some ridiculous or disgusting combination of different cuisines, each dish described meticulously no matter how lurid or unlikely--a hilarious sendup of yuppie haute cuisine. The gruesome murders in the book get mixed in, deadpan, with all these satiric surfaces of yuppie life in the 80s, so that it all seems of a piece, which is Ellis' point.
posted by Rebis at 10:59 AM on April 12, 2001

Well, I guess I'm in the minority about this, but I thought the movie was pretty damn good satire. The writing/directing was well thought out (lord knows the movie could have easily been REAL bad), and Christian Bale is turning into one of my favorite actors (of course I've only seen him in this and Velvet Goldmine).

I've never read the book. Passed it by for other '80s claptrap.

One question: in the movie, did he really commit the murders or were they all in his head. I vote in his head.
posted by schlomo at 11:11 AM on April 12, 2001

Schlomo, although I haven't seen the movie, I've posed the same question about the book to other readers. I think the split on the answers tell as much about the readers as the actual text. FWIW, I thought it was in his head. Just curious, did the movie have a character pop up later that he had supposed already killed?
posted by trox at 11:28 AM on April 12, 2001

. FWIW, I thought it was in his head.

I did, too. and I only saw the movie
posted by bliss322 at 11:33 AM on April 12, 2001

Another vote for "all in his head". I'd vote that way for the most of the sex too, in particular the stuff with the prostitutes, mostly because during the only sexual encounter that seemed genuine, all the (cough) action was compressed to the space of a paragraph, quite a departure from the other bits, in all their ridiculous detail.

The running questions with his friends re: fashion and style never failed to crack me up, though.

Speaking here about the book. I missed the movie as well.
posted by dcehr at 12:17 PM on April 12, 2001

I don't think so, Trox, but I could be wrong.

On a different note, after seeing the movie I want to change my bands name to Pale Nimbus.
posted by schlomo at 1:05 PM on April 12, 2001

possibly, the longest standing debate about AP is whether or not bateman fantasized the violence.

the movie hints at this, but the book contains a lot more "clues."

ya gotta read it veeerrrry carefully. ellis did a masterful job.
posted by Stagecoach at 1:14 PM on April 12, 2001

I loved the book and, unlike most here, thought the movie was good also. No, not as good as the book, but what movie is? I thought it was a decent effort considering much of the dialogue and humor was all in Bateman’s head. At least they stayed with the basic structure and theme of the book and didn’t try to rewrite it. Also, I thought Christian Bale was great for the part, and much better than Leonardo Decaprio would have been.

I have debated with my fiancé and others about the ‘did he kill them or not’ question and although we both lean towards it all being a dream you can punch holes in arguments for both sides. I think the beauty of it is in the end it doesn’t really matter if he committed the acts or not, the message is the same.

As I remember the movie, and it has been two years since I saw it, they did include the scene where Harold Carnes tells Bateman that he had lunch recently with Paul Owens, whom Bateman had supposedly murdered.

Anyway, back to the original posting, although I enjoyed the movie and loved the book, I can’t think of anything positive or entertaining coming out of any sequels. It’s just not a good idea in my mind.
posted by justgary at 1:47 PM on April 12, 2001

[SPOILER WARNING IF YOU HAVEN'T READ THE BOOK YET]




Unlike most people I've talked to who've both seen the film and read the book, I saw the movie first. I read the book because of the nagging doubt the movie leaves you with that the events you've witnessed actually happened in the physical world. I was curious if that had come from the director - who had reportedly made it much funnier than the book - or out of Ellis' original writing.

By I discovered that the book does not, in fact, clear up that uncertainty: you are left with the same hanging sensation that something just doesn't add up... Justgary is right, the scene where an acquaintance confirms that he had lunch with the man Patrick had supposedly killed in London just recently is in the film. But at first, he's not even sure of the purported victim's name - he stammers over it. So, does he know him, or not?

What's brilliant about the way it's constructed, though, is by the time you've reached the end of the book, you've been kept company by some of the most hideous people to ever walk the pages of a novel - and Bateman's actually not the worst of them. Ellis has created a world peopled by creatures who could, very easily, scrub-and-whitewash that blood spattered apartment and sell if for three times what the previous owner paid for it, without a second thought... I finished that book and all I wanted to do was take a shower...

I also looked all over the 'net trying to track down the footage that was cut to get from an NC-17 to an R - I know it's between seven and fourteen seconds of footage, that it's in the sequence of Patrick and the two prostitutes and that it immediately precedes the two of them hurriedly leaving. Given all the other stuff that was included, it's hard to imagine anything more horrible that had to be cut (no pun intended...) There's nothing - other than gruesome descriptive stuff - in the book; anybody know?
posted by m.polo at 1:56 PM on April 12, 2001

I was curious if that had come from the director - who had reportedly made it much funnier than the book - or out of Ellis' original writing.

I heard that also, and although the movie was funny (I especially like the part where he blew up the car(?) with a small handgun) the book had me in tears laughing.

But at first, he's not even sure of the purported victim's name - he stammers over it. So, does he know him, or not?

I think that's part of the beauty of the book. Everyone looks, dresses, and acts the same. They eat at the same places and date the same type women. They all seem like clones of each other.

I loved how everyone would call bateman the wrong name. When image is everything it really doesn't matter 'who' you are.
posted by justgary at 2:37 PM on April 12, 2001

Also, I thought Christian Bale was great for the part, and much better than Leonardo Decaprio would have been.

At least they're not doing The Beach II.

"We have an opportunity to launch young actors..."

Are these the same people who made those Poison Ivy movies?
posted by redleaf at 3:58 PM on April 12, 2001

Apparently "That 70's Show" isn't a real springboard to stardom. Bummer, I like that cast a lot and hate to see any of them in crap like this.
posted by mecran01 at 8:03 AM on April 13, 2001

Two words and two digits for you. Last Seduction II.
posted by feelinglistless at 4:59 PM on April 14, 2001

anybody know [what was cut from the movie to make the R rating]?

I think the Unrated American Psycho DVD includes this deleted footage. I saw the film on DVD, but it's been a while, and I can't think of anything particularly shocking about that scene. But I could've been watching the R-rated version.
posted by daveadams at 10:54 AM on April 16, 2001