American Beauty

Great movie, pity it was a hollywood blockbuster. Would have made an even better arthouse film.

I really don't think I understood this movie, because I don't see what was so great about it. What was it about? Appreciate life for what it is? Ambition and ideals are the root of isolation, and thus dissatisfaction? The realizations that the characters had at the end of the movie didn't seem to settle anything. They became more isolated from one another, and after what happened at the very end, I got the feeling that only further isolation could be in store for those people, and I don't understand what that has to say about the possible messages (about appreciation for existence) that the movie had been leading up to. I'm missing something.

[QUOTE=zero_sum_rule]Great movie, pity it was a hollywood blockbuster. Would have made an even better arthouse film.[/QUOTE]

How would the movie itself have changed in quality if it had been an "arthouse" film? Making money, mass enjoyment of it - does that cheapen it and mean that more people like me are going to like it for all the wrong reasons and render its arthouse meanings invalid? Are only arthouse movie crowds capable of truly appreciating this movie? What makes a movie an arthouse film anyway? It's catered towards a more sensitive and aesthetically crticial audience? If this artsy audience is the real judge of what makes a movie good, then wouldn't it be a postitive thing if the main stream media appreciated the same things as the artsy crowd? Wouldn't that mean that the main stream media had developed a deeper sensitivity to art? Or is that not what you want, being that the current artsy crowd would therefore no longer be the discerning elite audience for art. They'd have to resort to the artless. Didn't this already happen with the Dada phenomenon? I ask too many questions, I know it.

Stoyan, you already have my fave quote from Lester in there. ..starting with..

Sometimes, I feel like I'm seeing it all at once, and I can't take it. My heart swells up like a balloon that's about to burst. But then I remember to relax, and stop trying to hold onto it. And then, it flows through me like rain and I feel nothing but gratitude for every single moment of my stupid little life. You have no idea what I'm talking about, I'm sure. But don't worry. You will someday.

[QUOTE=zero_sum_rule]Great movie, pity it was a hollywood blockbuster. Would have made an even better arthouse film.[/QUOTE]
How would that effect the quality of the movie, though? A good movie is a good movie, regardless of where you see it.

I hate film snobs it was a great movie plain and simple.

[QUOTE=morey]I hate film snobs it was a great movie plain and simple.[/QUOTE]

I just hate snobs.

[QUOTE=Maddetchke Malorkus]I really don't think I understood this movie, because I don't see what was so great about it. What was it about? Appreciate life for what it is? Ambition and ideals are the root of isolation, and thus dissatisfaction? The realizations that the characters had at the end of the movie didn't seem to settle anything. They became more isolated from one another, and after what happened at the very end, I got the feeling that only further isolation could be in store for those people, and I don't understand what that has to say about the possible messages (about appreciation for existence) that the movie had been leading up to. I'm missing something.[/QUOTE]
In my opinion the movie was about many things. First,of course, it was about the appreciation of life. Pantheistic ideas that I so much enjoy in Wordsworth. You know, everyone being zen and all. Just enjoying every second of your life, no matter what superficial problems you think you have. But I'm actually just badly rephrasing the great quotes... The other idea behind it is to show how in reality the american dream, the life of the so-called "Smiths" (suburbia, two and a half kids, a caring wife, a hardworking man, washing your car on sundays, etc) is impossible. It is a model that's supposed to work, to make you happy, but it's practically impossible. Life doesn't work the way TV tells us.

Hi Stoyan,I think the film could have taken place in a western european setting very easily, and the effect of familiarity american spectators had could also be felt by us as well. Was it the same for an eastern european viewer like you ?

I've been raised in Germany and I'm studying at an American school and I read and watch american media so I can't really judge it only from the perspective of "pure" Eastern European person.

But I guess yeah, people can relate to the theme of disappointment and emptyness, but also beauty and all that...

Thank you, Stoyan, what you said the movie is about, is pretty much what I had thought I saw in it. In regards to what you said about the perfect life being an empty model that no one can live up to; I think the movie takes it even further to say that aiming for that unrealistic idea of "satisfaction" is what isolates people, and makes them miserable. The movie has all these characters who are reaching for that perfect idea of happiness, and are also the victims of the isolation they are forcing themselves into, by focusing on the unattainable dream. Alright, I see that and that's a good groundwork for a movie. However, I didn't like the way it followed through with those ideas.

I've talked about this film a lot inthe past. It definitely effected... affected... whatever, my life, in as much as a movie can change your life. American Beauty/Boogie Nights/AmericanPsycho... probably the three movies that changed my life the most in the late 90's... saw them all like 30 times a piece in the theatre during afternoon matinees when I was skipping work when I worked for an auto finance corporation as a loan officer, hated that job. I like American Beauty for all the normal reasons I'm sure everyone does... reminds me a lot of a book called MUSIC FOR TORCHING by A.M. Homes about fake Americana and how fucked-up your neighbors really are on the inside...

[img]http://nerdysouth.com/images/barbieandken.gif[/img]

[QUOTE=Brock Landers]I've talked about this film a lot inthe past. It definitely effected... affected... whatever, my life, in as much as a movie can change your life. American Beauty/Boogie Nights/AmericanPsycho... probably the three movies that changed my life the most in the late 90's... saw them all like 30 times a piece in the theatre during afternoon matinees when I was skipping work when I worked for an auto finance corporation as a loan officer, hated that job. I like American Beauty for all the normal reasons I'm sure everyone does... reminds me a lot of a book called MUSIC FOR TORCHING by A.M. Homes about fake Americana and how fucked-up your neighbors really are on the inside...

[img]http://nerdysouth.com/images/barbieandken.gif[/img]

Barbie has no nipples![/QUOTE]

Plus, Ricky Fitts' dad and the Real Estate King are like my dad if you put them together...

I liked just the little wise-ass retorts the characters made in this movie.

I have to see Boogie Nights, cause American Psycho and Beauty have both been influences as much as fight club. those three movies - that's all i need to see really.

Brock. How did American Psycho: The Movie affect your life?
Just wondering.

While we're wondering. . . how did Boogie Nights affect your life?

Mena Suvari has big nipples for someone who has such little breasts. But a truly phenomenal film.

[QUOTE=Balthazar]Mena Suvari has big nipples for someone who has such little breasts. But a truly phenomenal film.[/QUOTE]

puffies... they are awesome... puffies occur when breasts are still developing... I think that's why she got the role... really she's no fucking great actress or nothing... she just had "the look"...

Speaking of not great actresses... that annoying twat Kirsten Dunst turned down the role cause she didn't want to show her tits and also mentioned something about how gross it would be to kiss Kevin Spacey.

[QUOTE=Lisa]While we're wondering. . . how did Boogie Nights affect your life?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Fiberoptic Jesus]Brock. How did American Psycho: The Movie affect your life?
Just wondering.[/QUOTE]

This is a double answer. Basically it's like this. All these movies were right about the time I was all mentally-fucked-up and married and other stuff. I became fixated on them during this time period and as a result, made some very big changes. I stopped being crazy. I got a divorce. I got smart. I saw things for how they truly were. Maybe, in all reality, the movies themselves had nothing to do with my brain snapping and doing a complete 180. Maybe any movies would have sufficed. All I'm saying is that about the same time that happened I saw CHILL FACTOR and it didn't do shit for me... it's much more complicated really, it's just hard to explain... I gotta save my strength for the gym later...

[img]http://www.fdslabs.com/media/chill_factor.jpg[/img] < didn't feel a thing...

[QUOTE=Balthazar]Speaking of not great actresses... that annoying twat Kirsten Dunst turned down the role cause she didn't want to show her tits and also mentioned something about how gross it would be to kiss Kevin Spacey.[/QUOTE]

I never liked her. She annoyed me in Interview With The Vampire and that was that... the bitch got on my list of bitches I can't stand...

how bout if she showed her puffies...would that change your mind?

[QUOTE=stoyan]I have to see Boogie Nights, cause American Psycho and Beauty have both been influences as much as fight club. those three movies - that's all i need to see really.[/QUOTE]
stoyan, you're a smart kid and all, and i respect your posts and your stories in the workshop, so it pains me to tell you this, but

AMERICAN PSYCHO WAS COMPLETE HORSESHIT

[QUOTE=sushiminus]how bout if she showed her puffies...would that change your mind?[/QUOTE]

Kirsten Dunce doesn't have puffies. Not all girls get puffies. It's a nipple thing, not necessarily a developing breast thing. I bet she has wierd nipples. Makes me wanna gag. I don't like her face either, although I sorta did for like two seconds in virgin suicides...

[QUOTE=alex cassun]stoyan, you're a smart kid and all, and i respect your posts and your stories in the workshop, so it pains me to tell you this, but

AMERICAN PSYCHO WAS COMPLETE HORSESHIT[/QUOTE]

yeah BULWORTH was SO MUCH BETTER! fuckin' dweeb...

i can see why people dont like bullworth, but i've no idea why anyone would like american psycho outside the fact that it's based on the book. basically, its like if Choke ever gets made into a movie. even if it totally completely sucks (like american psycho did) there's going to be a legion of people who ignore the suck-factor strickly because the book was so good. same goes for like XMan of Batman movies. I was a big comics fan growing up, xmen and batman were my favorites, and i'm glad there's movies out for those comics because the recognition is nice, but that doesn't make the movies any better.

[QUOTE=alex cassun]i can see why people dont like bullworth, but i've no idea why anyone would like american psycho outside the fact that it's based on the book. basically, its like if Choke ever gets made into a movie. even if it totally completely sucks (like american psycho did) there's going to be a legion of people who ignore the suck-factor strickly because the book was so good. same goes for like XMan of Batman movies. I was a big comics fan growing up, xmen and batman were my favorites, and i'm glad there's movies out for those comics because the recognition is nice, but that doesn't make the movies any better.[/QUOTE]

fine. that makes sense. doesn't stop asshats from thinking donnie darko is the best film ever. I mean, even hardcore batman fans know the movies sucked. one thing has nothing to do with Mr. Freeze. Anyhow I liked Bulworth okay, I just thought it was just another decent political commentary film from Beatty, a dude who fights the meaningless fights without cease, another hippy who lived too long...

so are we in agreement that American Psycho is a horrible, horrible piece of trash film?

[QUOTE=alex cassun]so are we in agreement that American Psycho is a horrible, horrible piece of trash film?[/QUOTE]

hell no.. .I though Bale was great. It wasn't the best film ever, but it was very good and captured the essence of a great book quite effectively even though it cut out all the really good parts and the ending was a cop-out...

aaaarrrrrgggghhhhh!!!! it was horrible. i hate it so much it hurts. ive blocked out most of it, so i cant remember why i hate it so bad, but i do. why did it HAVE to be filmed 'in the 80s'? cuz the book was in the 80s? why didn't they just update the fucker? that was one thing. and his acting was vomitous. the directing sucked. it ranks with Human Nature and Underworld as the worst movies ever made.

[QUOTE=alex cassun]aaaarrrrrgggghhhhh!!!! it was horrible. i hate it so much it hurts. ive blocked out most of it, so i cant remember why i hate it so bad, but i do. why did it HAVE to be filmed 'in the 80s'? cuz the book was in the 80s? why didn't they just update the fucker? that was one thing. and his acting was vomitous. the directing sucked. it ranks with Human Nature and Underworld as the worst movies ever made.[/QUOTE]

an "updated" american psycho would be stupid. Besides you want an "updated" stupid american psycho, watch american psycho 2... I probably would agree that underworld and human nature were bad but I had common sense to write those off without ever having to go through the whole process of seeing them. I'm like that. I see shit coming and don't watch it. Call me crazy. Call me a pervert. The trailers for those looked stupid. The premises... stupid. All of it. Stupid. I don't need to see it to know it's stupid. Bale's acting was right on. Probably the best he'll ever do. You just didn't like how accurate he was with his portrayal. Most people do that... complain about how he talks all uptight. That's the thing about Bateman. Batemen is a pretentious fuck elitist who hates you. You hating American Psycho movie makes Batemen very happy. You proved him right about all the stupid people in the world...

[QUOTE=Brock Landers]an "updated" american psycho would be stupid. Besides you want an "updated" stupid american psycho, watch american psycho 2... I probably would agree that underworld and human nature were bad but I had common sense to write those off without ever having to go through the whole process of seeing them. I'm like that. I see shit coming and don't watch it. Call me crazy. Call me a pervert. The trailers for those looked stupid. The premises... stupid. All of it. Stupid. I don't need to see it to know it's stupid. Bale's acting was right on. Probably the best he'll ever do. You just didn't like how accurate he was with his portrayal. Most people do that... complain about how he talks all uptight. That's the thing about Bateman. Batemen is a pretentious fuck elitist who hates you. You hating American Psycho movie makes Batemen very happy. You proved him right about all the stupid people in the world...[/QUOTE]

also, I'm not a fan of the screenplay by Harron, but how exactly did her directing suck? You probably don't even know what directing is, not really...

imma gonna rewatch it just to point out all the crap she did that just sucked, directing wise.

and i never read the book, so maybe thats why i hated the movie. the thing is, his acting was fine because it was blocky and solid on purpose (as opposed to say Reeves in the Matrix, who's acting is always blocky and solid who just happened to land a roll that fit his acting perfectly). but the problem was that the movie didn't really give a reason for it being why it was. the book probably cleared a lot of shit up, all the questions i had for it and all. a friend mentioned the same thing about the new harry potter movie. he hasnt read any of the books, but theres parts in this new movie that didnt make sense, and my brother told him its because you have to read the book. well, fuck, that's goddamn stoopid, aint it? they should give you a free copy of the book before you enter the theater then.

as far as realizing a shitty movie before spending your money on it, i'm the same way. i know whats going to be stoopid and whats not. ive got a good bullshit detector. the difference between you and i is that i cant help myself from seeing the shit. it helps me, i think, to take in the bullshit, to analyze why its so bad, and to make notes to myself to make sure i dont make the same mistakes.

except with Human Nature. I thought Tim Robbins + Charlie Kaufman would = awesomes, but i was wrong. apparently, my bullshit detector was defunct that day.

so i guess im just admitting i made a mistake saying his acting sucked. he acted shitty on purpose. the script and the director both sucked on accident, though.

[QUOTE=alex cassun]imma gonna rewatch it just to point out all the crap she did that just sucked, directing wise.

and i never read the book, so maybe thats why i hated the movie. the thing is, his acting was fine because it was blocky and solid on purpose (as opposed to say Reeves in the Matrix, who's acting is always blocky and solid who just happened to land a roll that fit his acting perfectly). but the problem was that the movie didn't really give a reason for it being why it was. the book probably cleared a lot of shit up, all the questions i had for it and all. a friend mentioned the same thing about the new harry potter movie. he hasnt read any of the books, but theres parts in this new movie that didnt make sense, and my brother told him its because you have to read the book. well, fuck, that's goddamn stoopid, aint it? they should give you a free copy of the book before you enter the theater then.

as far as realizing a shitty movie before spending your money on it, i'm the same way. i know whats going to be stoopid and whats not. ive got a good bullshit detector. the difference between you and i is that i cant help myself from seeing the shit. it helps me, i think, to take in the bullshit, to analyze why its so bad, and to make notes to myself to make sure i dont make the same mistakes.

except with Human Nature. I thought Tim Robbins + Charlie Kaufman would = awesomes, but i was wrong. apparently, my bullshit detector was defunct that day.[/QUOTE]

uhhuh uhhuh..... I think why I never saw Human Nature is because that Rhys Ifans dude annoys me. I saw that he was in it... naked... and turned the other direction. It's like if morey was in a movie and got naked I'd have to pass on it...

[QUOTE=alex cassun]so i guess im just admitting i made a mistake saying his acting sucked. he acted shitty on purpose. the script and the director both sucked on accident, though.[/QUOTE]

you probably had to read the book first. I know I did. It could have been worse. They could have stayed with Leo DiCaprio as the original bateman instead of taking a chance on Bale, who did mostly indie flicks before Psycho...

was he in Psycho?*

*edit: if i had any pride at all, i would erase this before you guys (esp. brock) see this. you see, i must be tired or something. i was thinking brock was talking about the movie PSYCHO, the remake, rather than the movie we were discussing, which was AMERICAN PSYCHO. my bad...

god.damn.it.

[QUOTE=alex cassun]stoyan, you're a smart kid and all, and i respect your posts and your stories in the workshop, so it pains me to tell you this, but

AMERICAN PSYCHO WAS COMPLETE HORSESHIT[/QUOTE]
Yay, I'm really drunk now, but I'll try to write normally anyway...

So, I liked American Psycho for several reasons. Fist, it has some veruy very good momets. Like when Bateman speaks with Witherspoon and he tells her somethign like "I need to engage in homocide on a massive scale to satisfy my needs" and she doesn't even really hear him - that monent is one of the best depctions of communicarion provlems ever. And the monologues in the beginning and in the end are also ver very good. Like, The very last monologue that ends with "all this has meants nothign" - this is SO SO very much likeMacBeth's monologue in the fifth scene that ends with "signifying nothing." The one with "Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more. A story, told by a fool, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." Man, I can even recite that shit when I'm really drunk and all. And same with the Am Psycho monologue. "My pain is not relieved and I only wish to inflict it upon others" and all that. I think the movie is great in presenting what happens when you try to live TV's dreams and not your own. And I can fully relate to this. In the school I'm studying at, everyone is only only thinking about scolarships and US colleges all the time. Everyone's like "I'm going to the debatibng club so that it says so in my resume or recommendation or whatever,,,," Many people people are personifying a biography, not really being "themslelves". I think Am Psycho was a great movie. It has ultracool quotes and scenes and it takes the idea og living an idea and stretches it to the extreme. Also, I've read Below Zero by BEE and loved it . I have Am Psycho the book as an ebook but I'm too lazy to start it... Anyway, I've seen the movie like a hundred time and really like it. Bale does a wonderfukl job, and all the other actors seem to be good as well although I don't know shit about actibng.

[QUOTE=Brock Landers]hell no.. .I though Bale was great. It wasn't the best film ever, but it was very good and captured the essence of a great book quite effectively even though it cut out all the really good parts and the ending was a cop-out...[/QUOTE]
The ending was the same as the book wasn't it? I think the ending was perfect because the whole story is bateman confusing reality with fantasy.

Updating AP would be imposible. It isn't the same story if it isn't about the 80's yuppie cocksuckers. The book was a satire on that type of person.

As far as showing all the "good stuff"...it would be impossible to get an R rating. If you ever saw Day of the Dead you would notice that it is not-rated because it couldn't even get an R rating and the gore in that movie is weak or you watch a movie like Crash and that got an NC-17 after cuts. Censorship is crazy for moives unless you are doing a WWII moive staring tom hanks.
The movie had to be different, it had to focus on the dark humor or it could not have got made.

With all these fucking super hero movies and shit like You Got Served polluting movie theaters you should be thanking god for moives like american psycho.

As far as Bale goes, he played the part perfect. If you read AP, then you would know that bateman cannot communicate/connect with people. He can only recite reviews for genesis or repeat what someone said on the news.

-K

Thank you for making my point for me. If you haven't read the book then the movie doesn't make sense. I'm sure the books great, and I'm sure I'd appreciate the movie if'n I'd read the book (i own it, but i can't get into it). However, [i]as a movie[/i] it fucking sucks.

i haven't watched the whole thing but i enjoyed the bits i did see and never touched an Ellis book so uh..........

i liked some of the movie, like the way he'd go around and put plastic down or whatever before killing people, or whatever, that was good. there were definitely some good parts, and actually, sitting here thinking about it, they were only because of bale's acting. so give him a point for that. but still, the movie resides in the basement of every movie i've ever seen.

[QUOTE=morey]I hate film snobs it was a great movie plain and simple.[/QUOTE]
Yer, 'american beauty' was a good movie, like i already said. But i think [B]some[/B] of the acting was poor. Not quite doing an excellent script justice. And personally i just think the script was more suited to arthouse techniques, its subtleties clumsily expressed in broad attempts to make it a commercial success rather than for the art of it. But even for all that its in my top twenty.

Anyhow an arthouse film, doesn't have to be [I]unpopular[/I], or for some imagined neo-beatnik audience that think they are some sort of elite. Perhaps Amercan Beauty's commercial viability overrode its fidelity to what it was trying to express. But hey, maybe its just me.
I'd like to think i'm relatively informed on cinema, i think i can critique a script or film adeptly. But if being an informed cinema-goer with an opinion makes me snob?

Rock 'n roll, suck it up.
I

it took you two days to find someone with half a brain to write that for you. well done!

Hahaha, whatever.

Not everyone lives online. Maybe you should consider unplugging once in a while yourself.

[QUOTE=zero_sum_rule]Hahaha, whatever.

Not everyone lives online. Maybe you should consider unplugging once in a while yourself.[/QUOTE]
Maybe you don't know, but actually Alex [I]does [/I] live online. I'm not kidding. He is a high-technology forum bot with pseudo-artificial pseudo-intelligence. He's still in beta version so that's why he is only posting here, but wait till he is plugged into the google database...

Kind of a jackanapes skynet?

[QUOTE=ketamineman]The ending was the same as the book wasn't it? I think the ending was perfect because the whole story is bateman confusing reality with fantasy.

Updating AP would be imposible. It isn't the same story if it isn't about the 80's yuppie cocksuckers. The book was a satire on that type of person.

As far as showing all the "good stuff"...it would be impossible to get an R rating. If you ever saw Day of the Dead you would notice that it is not-rated because it couldn't even get an R rating and the gore in that movie is weak or you watch a movie like Crash and that got an NC-17 after cuts. Censorship is crazy for moives unless you are doing a WWII moive staring tom hanks.
The movie had to be different, it had to focus on the dark humor or it could not have got made.

With all these fucking super hero movies and shit like You Got Served polluting movie theaters you should be thanking god for moives like american psycho.

As far as Bale goes, he played the part perfect. If you read AP, then you would know that bateman cannot communicate/connect with people. He can only recite reviews for genesis or repeat what someone said on the news.

-K[/QUOTE]

the book is much more vague about the ending. I didn't like the movie ending. I prefer to believe the violence in the book was real. The ending of the movie was "clever". I don't like the "clever" ending. The movie makes him out to be 'for sure' a loony. The book leaves it open to interpretation. The movie is a softer version of the book...

Also I don't buy that "the good stuff" would not get an R. I'm talking the violence stuff. MPAA doesn't give a shit about slashing and gashing. They only get upset about sex... hence the reason there is an unrated version of American Psycho available on DVD, which is basically just thre more seconds of a scene involving a threesome. That's a fucking waste right there and another example of stupid marketing tactics. Three seconds. That's it. Not even three good or interesting seconds. Anyhow, I woulda liked to see more gore. As it stands, it's just like the Texas Chainsaw Massacre inthat the original has zero actual violence onscreen. It's all alluded to, which is fine, but whatever. The book is way better because Ibelieve inthe violence and that patrick was an actual psycho not just some pathetic social commentary joke about the eighties as the book implies. It's the reason Mary Harron is not Bret Easton Ellis. She changed his book to fit her agenda...

I'm just sayin', al kinds of gorefests get made and are rated R, so why not this? anyway...

Agreed again about an update being stupid...

Now, with that said, would someone please get my clear raincoat, a copy of "Huey Lewis & The News" "Fore" CD, and my stainless steel axe! Oh, and don't forget to tape some copies of the "Styles" section of the newspaper to the floor and cover the furniture with sheets, and no... I don't own a "chow" dog, that's morey with Mico! I am at a loss for words to describe how I feel after reading most of the comments concerning American Psycho. For the life of me, I can't understand how anyone would not be able to appreciate "American Psycho" for what it is... a masterpiece. I understand that this film may not appeal to everyone because of the subject matter, and the fact remains that many people under the age of twenty may not get some of the 80s satire, but still it is impossible to ignore the phenomenal acting skills of Bale as Bateman, and certainly the dialogue and direction are some of the best in recent years... the whole scene about "chicks with good personalities" is worth the price of admission alone...

To say that there is no tension or climaxes in this film is like saying that "T2: Judgement Day" lacked action or "Memento" was devoid of twists. The entire idea that "American Psycho" is a horrible film is ludicrous, I mean it may not be your personal favorite film or even one you like, but it is still a brilliant cinematic effort all around (musical score, cinematography, etc...). There are plenty of films that are bad in many ways, but even if for some reason you hate the acting or directing or story or whatever, it is still better than most films on buku other levels. I like to dissect women. Did you know I'm totally insane? For someone to say that the only good thing about the film was Reese Witherspoon and Chloe Sevigny is baffling to me. What about Christian Bale as the living, breathing epitome of a psychopathic individual? Or hell... what about Willem Dafoe as the eerie detective? Jared Leto as the consumate a-hole? Samantha Mathis as the beautiful lush? Cara Seymour as the naive prostitute? Justin Theroux as the intensely mysterious Timothy Bryce? Etc...

The performances all around are top-notch by any standards and I have yet to find a weak link. My need to engage in homicidal behavior on a massive scale cannot be corrected, but, ah, I have no other way to fulfill my needs. "One moment of tension"? Are you kidding me? What the hell is going on here... this movie was chock full o' tension, build-ups, moments of brilliantly staged violence and innuendo, scenes that make you think about the nature of man, of reality for that matter, and just how much do we really know about ourselves and the truth behind things, are things really as they seem... you better not believe that... fuck, man...

Every time I watch this film I get something new out of it, it's like the layers keep peeling away and more intricate details appear. It's unlike any film before, and impossible to recreate, especially without Bale as Bateman... I am referring to the shitty idea to make "American Psycho 2" that got greenlighted by Lions Gate Films... the bastards!. By the way did someone mention a certain actresses performance in "Little Nicky" as being better?! What's that shit about?! There isn't a single thing in "Little Nicky" that can even begin to compete with "American Psycho", let alone win. Do I want to hear this nonsense? Not if you want to keep your spleen. Now bring me a double absolut, straight. How could the ending be stupid?! It fit perfectly, and left a great question for the viewer... did he or didn't he? But it could have ben even better...

I mean, some fucking people need their cinema spoon fed to them, they need to be told how things end, but it's brilliant to leave it open for discussion and speculation, just like the kick-ass book by Bret Easton Ellis does. Doesn't anyone appreciate subtlety these days, or even implied violence? I know I do, but I also like some blood and guts. The whole point of the film is to point out what dorks these guys were, and how the whole 80's thing was silly, the lifestyles were out of whack, and everybody was so busy competing with each other over stupid stuff that they failed to notice how stupid they were acting. Oh my god! What next?! "The Godfather" is too boring and slow? I mean, Jesus Christ! "American Psycho" has so much to say if you would only give it a chance people! Holy Mackeral!

If this was the worst film of 2000, then what was the best? "Pokemon: The First Movie"? Man. "Bounce"?! For the love of all that is sacred and holy... shit! It's called "satire", look it up... no wait a sec, I'll do it for you..."Satire: n. a literary genre in which ridicule is thrown upon something by stressing its worst features, often by the use of irony, thus assuming or affirming a norm by which aberrations are judged."

Now, if that is the definition of satire, then let's try looking up "American Psycho" in the Brock Landers Revised Edition Dictionary... "American Psycho: a cinematic journey that throws ridicule upon a decade by stressing its worst features, by using irony, thus affirming and assuming a norm by which aberrations are judged... in other words, it a frickin' satire!" I have all the characteristics of a human being... blood, flesh, skin, hair... but not a single, clear, identifiable emotion, except for greed, blue balls and disgust. Something horrible is happening inside of me and I don't know why. My nightly bloodlust has overflown into my days. I feel lethal, on the verge of frenzy. I think my mask of sanity is about to slip. You'll fucking love it or fucking hate it. You'll get it or you won't. But if you do, you're in for an hilarious, horrifying, ambiguous somewhat violent little ditty. A powerful statement about the 80's, a fun slasher ride and an immensely entertaining film...

How is it possible that anyone could find this film boring? Well, in my opinion, people are bombarded by so much crap in their local cineplexes that when a film of true insight and artistic value comes along they have no goddamn clue what to make of it. Who cares what all of your friends think? Think for yourself, and decide for yourself if you like this film. There is an idea of an "American Psycho"... some kind of abstraction. But there is no real "American Psycho" only an entity, something illusory. And though I can hide my cold gaze, and you can watch this film and see it as crap and maybe you can even sense the greatness of it, you simply must not be there... This Is Not An Exit...