I was like wow I didn't know what to expect besides some messed up killings and violence. There is so much more to this movie though and Christian Bale can act like the bests. He has a hardcore English accent, but is able to talk with out it the whole movie. He also knows exactly how to portray a mentally unstable competitive wealth business man. There are twists and turns and gruesome kills. The ending is great though and you would not expect it at all. I recommend this movie, but seriously don't watch this unless you are atleast 14 or 15. Even then I recommend being older. You have to be older and more mature to appriciate the great talent within this movie.

Amazing Movie overall. Bateman exposes all of the things in one but in such an anal way that it is just excruciating to watch and in a sense overwhelming. The mixture of murder, insanity, comedy and satire within all of the essence of the movie makes it one to really take time to analyze. It took the stereotype of the typical Hollywood serial killer and completely slaughtered it and made it something beautifully sick and realistic that gives you an additional view to what life for someone stuck in a materialistic rut that cloaks what they really feel is. It takes you into the mind of this completely anal psychopath who's life is terribly ordinary which makes him want to fit in to it 100 percent. The only thing you do know is the fact that you get inside the brain of the american psycho and feel how he tries to cope with what is in his brain, and most importantly, what isn't.

There are numerous things wrong with this otherwise faithfull adaptation in terms of it's structure, plot and ability to portray a strong focus on it's lead character (although heavily watered down). For starters, it is far too tame. You may argue that a lot of the explicit sex and violence in the book was unnecessary but the truth is the Patrick Bateman in the book is obsessed with detail, perfection and routine, so he explains popular culture, food and restaurants and bathing products with the same explicit nature as he describes his killings with his victims and the sex he has with them beforehand. This was missing. I never once heard Patrick Bateman describe what he likes to do to his female victims in sickening detail. Although this was sick it does serve a purpose and would have proven to be a very uniquely cinematic function that would be very disturbing and almost something we have never seen before in a film. Plus the fact it would sidestep the censors as its not physical violence being committed, merely psychological. They lost something unique in this. Also Patrick Bateman in the book does some unbelievably f***** up things to his victims which makes it hard to read. That's why there was all the controversy. The film does NOT have this effect and it should at least have been shocking, and the fact that there was no controversy surrounding the films release sums it up quite well. It's like a book that is really heartbreaking and sad and brings you to tears but the adapted film doesn't make you feel this way- you often think that something important was missing and the film makers have missed the point.

Secondly were the production values. In the book you imagine the locations- Bateman's apartment, his office, the parties they attend, the nightclubs and restaurants, to exceed anything we could ever imagine and associate with 'rich' in reality. In the book they are lavish, far more than we could ever imagine. Now its fairly obvious that this film is relatively low budget and as result it suffers a little by showing us locations we would associate with upper middle class in a TV sitcom, not upper class people who have that sense of materialistic achievement the likes of which we never knew existed. And it's a little too obvious that most of it was shot in a film studio. Many of the characters in the book would frown upon the living conditions of what the characters in the film have.

Thirdly was Patrick Bateman himself. He was never this much of a geek in the book. He was a very powerful, ruthless man, who describes all that sense of materialism that is apparently appealing to most humans, whilst displaying a sense of genuine animosity and sinister ness that you would almost regard as 'inhuman'. A lot of people miss the point of this; sometimes your confused as to whether he is human or some form of demon and it plays with your perceptions a little, thereby proving to be the most disturbing element of the book itself. Patrick Bateman in the book is actually very well respected and his possibly so far at the top of his game its no surprise he appears to be inhuman. In the film he is a run of the mill yuppie that is a bit of a loser compared to his mates. In the film he does what he does 'cause he feels he has no choice, in the book he does what he does 'cause he gets such a kick out of it and is such a spoilt brat that enjoying the most expensive things in life are not enough for him. He is so disgusted with meals, clothes, other products etc that don't cost thousands of dollars and aren't the best it is actually quite unbelievable yet interesting, and you get the sense that he spends a thousand just to walk out his door. You don't get a sense of what an expensive life Patrick Bateman lives in the film. Also in the book he really is a ladies man and wherever he goes he always gets a chicks phone number- which would lead onto inevitable consequences. In the film he often has to rely on hookers- one of which the ugly blonde one, who is so ugly the character in the book wouldn't even look at her (the book version of his character is VERY fussy about his women and wouldn't have sex with her unless she was 100% perfect looking, and NOT one that has the characteristics of a yorkshire terrier). In short, the book version of Patrick Bateman would have eaten the one in the film (literally alive) for breakfast in terms of greed and corruption and wanting the best of everything.

Fourthly was the scope of the film, again a fault with the films production values. In the book the characters get up to far more interesting things- conference meetings, huge parties, rock concerts, opera and so one, in the film all they ever seem to do is go to the same nightclub and restaurants and sit around and talk. As a result the film shows little achievement as to some of the excitement the characters get up to. That's also what was disturbing about the book, it shows a lifestyle that these yuppies have that entices you and almost makes you feel a little envious of what they get up to. In the film the characters lives are just boring, plain and simple.

Last of all (and thank god after all my bitching) the other characters in the book are far more complex and interesting than the 1 dimensional representation we get of them in the film. All of them are obsessed about the same things as Bateman who isn't such a loner and makes you question whether or not they get up to the same things as Bateman despite the fact that they give the impression otherwise. All of them are vain and are obsessed with looking good and getting the best out of everything. Again in the film they are just traditional yuppies.

Well I'm sorry I've bored you after this lengthy comparison but if you have read the book long ago as I have; and expected something special and monumental as the book was, rather than a film that was too small scale and lacked the passion and ambition it so desperately needed, I'm sure you'd agree. There should have been moments in this film that really shocked you into realising what a human being is capable of in terms of committing acts of evil towards others but alas, all we got was a naked guy running down a corridor wearing sneakers and wielding a chainsaw. I feel that the strongest thing about the film is easily Christian Bales' outstanding performance, and you wonder what could have been achieved in the hands of a greater director like Oliver Stone, Brian De Palma or even Martin Scorsese, who had a bigger budget and a little more verve and daringness to do it more justice, rather than Mary Hannon's merely competent but pedestrian and un-cinematic take on the book

You can just imagine the scene in some movie producers office :

" You know that movie set in the 1980s where Christian Bale kills his colleagues ? "

" Yeah vaguely "

" Well I just wrote the sequel "

" Is that the one where both Bale's character and Bale himself don't make an appearance , instead we have a teenage bimbo bumping off people she doesn't like ? "

" Yeah "

" Then why's your screenplay called TEENAGE BIMBO GOES ON KILLING SPREE ? Shouldn't either the words American or Psycho appear if it's a sequel ? "

" Hey I never thought of that "

"And it's probably illegal to call something a sequel if it has absolutely no connection with the original movie "

" Thanks for pointing that out boss . I'll rewrite the opening scene even if it contradicts the first movie . Let's do lunch "

I'm sort of guessing the producers had what's known in Britain as " A liquid lunch " or possibly they had something even stronger . As many people on this site have pointed out AP2:AAG not only hints that not only does it have nothing in common with the original movie it also seems to contradict AP . The story centres around Rachael Newman who would have been about four years old during the events of the first film . Why did anyone have to use the character of Patrick Bateman to set up the story here ? It's not even a plausible set up and it's not a plausible story in the first place . Perhaps the most ridiculous thing is how on earth Rachael would be physically able to commit these crimes because Mila Kunis doesn't look an inch taller than five foot , doesn't look an ounce heavier than ninety pounds and yet is able to commit acts of extreme violence with a sharp object . Realising this unlikely scenario the director wisely often cuts to a different scene when Rachael bumps off a victim . But this doesn't stop other massive plot holes like the police not checking for DNA when the victim of a car crash is found at the end of the movie

AP2:AAG is yet another cynical attempt to sell a stupid movie as a " Black comedy " but this is done in an even more cynical manner since it's a serial killer screenplay marketed as the sequel to a totally unrelated movie . It might have funny moments but these I'm sure are totally unintentional . If you saw the original you will hate this , if you haven't you will still hate this . Perhaps the motive behind it was to make the original appear much better than it actually was . If so then the producers have succeeded

Having read the novel by Easton-Ellis a year ago I was intrigued to find out how it could be made into a movie.

Whilst turned off by the totally uneccesary details of Batemans crimes in the book, I felt that Easton's insight into superficial 80's yuppie culture made it a classic.

Who could play a credible Bateman? Leonardo Di Caprio? I think not.

How would Mary Harron deal with those controversial torture scenes?

What we got was one of the finest movies I have seen for some time. Of course, those of closed minds will slate this film without even bothering to see it, simply because of the book's notoriety.

I was impressed to see how closely Harron followed the book, replacing the un-filmable seens with suggestion, aka ear-cutting scene from resevior dogs, so that you believe you have seen more than you have. There are more parallels with Tarantino, such as the use of classic (& non classic ) 80's pop to create a stylised feel to the movie, that has not been seen since Pulp Fiction.

Casting was superb, with Cristian Bale giving the performance of a lifetime, We, the audience, saw the souless monster within, Batemans superficial aquaintences, saw another faceless human being.

Just like the book, you are never sure wether Batemans crimes are real, or just imaginary, but his slide into insanity is clearly real and paced expertly by Bale.

Rheese Witherspoon as Evelyn was disappointing, "Election" showed what a great actress she is and although this role called for an airhead performance, it was clear that she was cruising.

Mary Harron deserves the credit for creating an excellent film, that could have so easily been just another slasher movie.

I rewatched this for the first time in a long time . . . and I have to say WOW. Christian Bale is just crazy good in this film.
A bloodbath that never swells to the level of the inner monolouge, American Psycho is a mixed bag of serial killer madness, horror, and a commentary on the yuppie culture of the 80's. The beginning builds up nicely with the self possessed Bateman, toning himself up and using his lifestyle and body to condone the heinous crimes he perpetrates against society. Cutting down colleagues, hookers, homeless people, and random government workers, blood saturates everything from the plot to the illicit dialouge. Besides the mere fact that Bateman is slowly increasing the level of his perverse actions, his fantasies are blurring into his reality. A great part for Christian Bale, with a standout role for Jared Leto and the always independent Chloe Sevigny.It's a highly entertaining movie with enough edgy humor to prickle our senses. I give it personally a perfect score.