Additional Posters Part 2:

Additional Posters Part 3:

Excellent subset pick..

I'm curious about the book this is based on - It seems brilliant for a female writer/director team to tackle what seems like a portrait of male aggression and they really nailed it. "I simply am not there." The skin care introduction is a perfect set up thematic, menacing, and trivial. Some of the 80s references are maybe too on the nose but they are so plentiful it hits. Christian Bales gives one of surprisingly many career defining performances in his filmography; exaggerated, sardonic, and aggressive. "Pumpkin youre dating an a-shole." The dark aggressive humor is great engaging but still a slow burn towards increasingly more chaotic stuff. The commentary on empty banter is just one of the many great contrasts like blood splattered Huey Lewis. The beginning is strong and iconic it lulla a bit in the middle but the veiled neediness and unraveiling of Bateman is a great slow burn filled with the 80s scene/sound candy; but this is probably good because it keeps it from being a brainless gore fest (no that Im against schlock) and more an evil existential question of identity. I wish the Evelyn subplot had been meatier, it feels too played as a joke and while Bateman's lack of human connection is a point this feels puzzlingly shallow in an intelligent comedy like this.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre homage is brilliant tying together themes from the cosmetic mask, imitation from tv, and fitting the murder vibe.

How does Willen Dafoe know what is missing from Paul Allen's apartment down to one suit?
They probably paid a fortune for the soundtrack here.

I never much cared for this. It’s not a bad film, the Bateman character just bugs me and I can’t get past it. I totally understand that’s the whole point, but the pompous douchebag schtick drives me up a wall.

This is a movie I have always wanted to love but just can't seem to embrace it like I feel I should. I read the book years ago but literally remember nothing about it. But the movie, I have seen numerous times and always enjoy the first half. I find the second half a bit disjointed and annoying, but it also appears that was what the filmmakers were possibly going for.

There are just so many good lines, scenes and dialogue deliveries in the first half that it is hard to pick a favorite. But at the same time, the movie leaves me quite cold, and I can't say I love the film as a whole. I actually disliked the movie when I first saw it in 2000, but I think I was too young at the time to get all the heavy satire in it. The movie is well cast, the music is great, and horror is there. My biggest dislike of the film is the tired trope where everything is a dream or someone's imagination. It has worked well in many films, but I think it falls flat on its face here. I just do not think it is revealed or handled well.

Still enjoyable film though.

My rating: ***1/2 out of *****

ps. Had to cut the review short because I have to return some videotapes.

A tour de-force performance by Christian Bale as a psychotic wall street executive. The performance is so good that I find I simultaneously find him funny, like him, despise him and fascinated by him all at the same time.
10/10

It's surprised me how many people interpreted the ending as a "turns-out-Patrick-was-imagining-everything" twist. Perhaps it was a hang-over from the phenomena of The Sixth Sense, that people were now looking for twist endings, or maybe it was the fault of bad direction. I've read interviews where Mary Harron says hearing so many people thought Patrick hadn't really murdered anyone made her question what she might have done wrong to give this impression.

Oh, I never said I didn't think he ever murdered anyone. He's obviously a nutcase and has likely harmed people. But all the murders we see, save possibly the homeless victim, are dreamed away. Or at least, that is the impression the movie gives.

If I am wrong, please explain.

That’s definitely the impression I got as well.

I’ll admit to being confused the first time I watched it, thinking that it probably was all imaginary. Some parts definitely are, like the over-the-top shootout scenes, and I don’t fully understand the film perhaps. But it’s thought-provoking for sure. The two commentaries are good listens.

The existential bit of American Psycho really elevates the film; it's not clear to what degree Bateman is real within himself or to others and that really muddies things as it opens up more curious deeper points about identity and social exchange. I thought they were trying to be intentionally ambiguous.
The notebook with the gorey profane images, some based in scenes from the film, suggests a flight of fantasy clearly more artistic than literal (nevermind the wanton gun scene). I'm not sure I believe anything after Paul Allen was real; but aside from the detective there's evidence even Allen never existed.
When Bateman mimics Leatherface running down the hall with the chainsaw after watching the scene on tv it lends itself to suggest the age old banter about people mimic'ing media (if not in practice in mentality); same with the p-rn video and later his scenes with the ladies seeming similar - like we're watching a movie though the filter of the video rentals rather than objectively as it really happened (great poster in the original post suggesting this). This is Bateman's life by video store (or even musical choices) and never the truth to varying degrees.
Characters who don't recognize him, Paul Allen's apartment not being his apartment, etc further suggest the film we see is really inflated/distorted/nonsense.

I also think it might be missing some of the point to look for objective truth in American Psycho, it doesn't really matter what was real because it's a commentary on the process of reality and not the substance of it - how Bateman and others gel into a shared understanding that never ever matches up in American Psycho but challenges out social perceptions for our own reality, indulges our dark impulses, and celebrates the ego of 80s culture (and beyond).

This seems like a film my age group really embraced - or maybe it was just my peer group. Everyone I knew loved this film, many owned it (even those types who don't typically own many movies), and it was frequently referenced. I've been at friends' homes many times where this was thrown on, even just as background.

I've always appreciated it, but it falls short of being one I really love. I never read the book but had friends in high school who were big fans, so it was a film I really anticipated and followed all the drama before it got made. While Bale is incredible in the movie, I've always wondered what the movie would have looked if it had moved forward with Leonardo Dicaprio as was announced at one point. I'm not at all saying the film would have been better with Dicaprio. It's just one of those interesting casting what-ifs.

I also followed the drama because I was a big fan of Harron's earlier film, I Shot Andy Warhol. Looking at her filmography, she has stayed busy but didn't enjoy nearly the lift from this film that Bale received. I hate to question how much of that could have been because she was a woman. She's definitely a director I expected to hear about more than I did.

Christian Bale is fantastic in this. He really nails that strange mix of humorous, scary and arrogant.

Wasn't the homeless man his first kill? That could have been Patrick "practicing" on an easy target before he does something as bold as killing a colleague. My guess is that kill and the murder of Paul Allen (who may not have actually been Paul Allen) were real. Everything else is debatable, though some things (such as the ATM telling him to feed it a cat) are clearly in his head. LIke Undeadcow said, I think it's supposed to be ambiguous and not really the point of the film.

Overall, I think this is a compelling watch no matter how you approach it. I find it very rewatchable, with Bale being the main strength.

Sidenote: As (darkly) funny as the movie sometimes is, I find his killing of the homeless man disturbing. All the other murders have some element of humor to them, but that one is just ugly.

Which is why I think it is the only one that really actually happened (at least onscreen).

I think, like Less Than Zero by the same author, these are adaptations that are better than their source novels. That said, it was fine to rewatch but not sure I'd have gone out of my way were if not for the subset choice. Bale, though, is pretty great, and yes, the music budget must have been significant.

I think, like Less Than Zero by the same author, these are adaptations that are better than their source novels. That said, it was fine to rewatch but not sure I'd have gone out of my way were if not for the subset choice. Bale, though, is pretty great, and yes, the music budget must have been significant.