I guess it depends on the viewer’s tastes. It was hilarious to me personally. The overly serious way he describes his metrosexual routine, the importance of the quality of business cards, etc. The horror aspect and gore takes a backseat for me and I view it as a comedy.
I always thought that was the point of it. To be comment on the absurdity of stereotypical businessmen of the time. All wearing the same "uniform," using the same business cards, indistinguishable from one another.
It is a comedy! Its all one huge absurd comedy of the fragile, toxic masculine existence. So you've nailed it.
To really really love this film, you kinda have to be familiar with the era that this film came from. Specifically, the absolute love of money=success of the yuppie culture of the 80's. Also, ultra violence was a big thing in movies from that time.
For more context, watch Oliver Stone’s “Wall Street” with Michael (greed is good) Douglass.
Why do you feel it was bad?
Rented this movie with my roommates in college. Fairly early on, the one from India blurts out, "What the fuck are we watching?!" So at least you're not alone in Not Getting It.
I'd say it's about horror-comedy. Tension that could become absurd or horrifying or both. Exemplified in abundance when Christian Bale leaps around a corner with nothing but tennis shoes and a running chainsaw. Message be damned - the film has your attention. And the payoff is watching that chainsaw tumble down a staircase, barely knowing what you want to happen.
That's set against literally bloodless surprises, creating unease by allowing no solid ground. You're watching a movie called Rich Prick Kills People and you've watched this rich prick kill people and you're not one hundred percent sure whether this rich prick actually killed people. There's no spoilery answer because it's not about that.
'Why is this film popular?' is mostly a matter of good acting, good pace, and some extremely memorable bits. Unfortunately the shock value is steeply diminished if you know they're coming... and the best parts became stock references for the 4chan generation.
'Why is this film important?' involves an admittedly shallow discussion of postmodernism. Patrick Bateman is trapped in hyperreality. It is so convincingly artificial that it has subsumed the real world. "Objects have won." He is so deep in the fake-world economics of useless boardroom executive horseshit that even murdering his fellow vice presidents has no impact. The system folds right over it like it never happened. This impotence extends to the sex workers and service workers he tries to lash out at: it does not matter. His most vile and id-crazed fantasies cannot so much as stain a closet.
... and of course there's a fandom of dipshits who think this useless maniac is the coolest guy evarrr.
Yeah, that's what I meant to say.
I was literally about to say that. Dude stole my post.
So you don’t like Huey Lewis and The News?
Their early work was a little too new wave for my taste. But when Sports came out in '83, I think they really came into their own, commercially and artistically. The whole album has a clear, crisp sound, and a new sheen of consummate professionalism... that really gives the songs a big boost.
Feels like Fight Club to me where there is a subset of young men who like it, not recognizing it's a parody. Then there's people who get it and like it as a comedy. And the obviousness of which is which is not always clear, so you will never see me talking about whether I like it or not because it invites the first type.
Big overlap with the "I liked Rage Against The Machine, until they started getting political" crowd.
The not getting that you’re being called out for loving the violence and fascism part of the movie reminds me of Verhoven films like “Starship Troopers” and “Robocop”.
People who think you're supposed to like Bateman are people you don't need to associate with, its a great litmus test
I like vanilla, some people like chocolate
I think it’s hilarious tbh
I think it's just fun to see Christian Bale convincingly play a psychopath lol
I don’t really remember it, so I guess it isn’t very memorable. It seems not to have been especially praised by critics, nor by the author. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Psycho_(film)#Reception
Original author [Bret Easton] Ellis said, "American Psycho was a book I didn't think needed to be turned into a movie", as "the medium of film demands answers", which would make the book "infinitely less interesting". He also said that while the book attempted to add ambiguity to the events and to Bateman's reliability as a narrator, the film appeared to make them completely literal before confusing the issue at the very end.
It's hilarious! My favorite Bale performance easily. Willem Dafoe is excellent too. I love the whole over-the-top 80s NYC yuppie caricature.
It's also a scathing nightmare parable about the raw pursuit of wealth and influence.
I watched it for the first time the other day. I didn't hate it, but it wasn't at all what I expected, and I'm kind of surprised it has the profile it does. I quite liked the ambiguity of a lot of it though.
Interested to see what responses you get here.
Why do you think it's bad?
What do you find bad about it? Do you have specifics?
Many things taken together: The message is too “in your face”. The comedy is weak. The story not engaging enough, lots of false starts but no follow through.
The acting is good though, and there were some tits. Overall 2/5. Not bad enough to matter, just “meh”. Which is why it confuses me that it enthralled so many people.
It maybe the time and place. Watching it now we might be too far away from the 80s to have it still resonate. Back in the 80s there was a few people like Bateman. So the commentary on the era while it was still fresh in memory that really added to the humor.
This is an important point.
All texts (writing, film, other media) are constructed against their contemporary cultural context, and rely on that context to give them meaning.
Ever watch stand-up comedy from a decade ago? Even if you laughed yourself sick at it at the time... it ages extremely badly, since it's so intimately tied into the whole vibe of the time.
The more generic the work, the longer its use-by date - but of course, the less likely it is to be memorable.
After a time, all things die. And that's okay.
For the memes.
I read the book because I was a big bookworm and I had only that one book (was in another country, being poor).
So bad.
Just a really bad book with ultra violence added IMO.
The film is over quicker so IMO better than the book, which was about 500 pages too long.
Christian Bale is a handsome man
I recently watched the lion king and was whelmed.
Story telling has just evolved. The pacing of modern movies is more finely tuned. I can see how these movies used to be good but we're just spoiled by better movies.
wait you can be whelmed? I had never considered that I had only ever heard people say underwhelmed.
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~