I just watched this movie. It’s so bad! Why? What am I missing?
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.
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.
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.
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”.
Big overlap with the “I liked Rage Against The Machine, until they started getting political” crowd.
I like vanilla, some people like chocolate
deleted by creator
Chocolate desserts always have vanilla in them, vanilla never has chocolate in it.
Just think about that for a minute…
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
You’re busy actively being correct. That’s what you’re doing.
Lol, I’ll give you the upvote for the entertainment!
Vanilla is so… Vanilla. (Though I think both have their place)
Lol, OK, I’ll give you that phrase at least.
But I disagree that vanilla is any kind of simple or plain. It makes chocolate more chocolatey. It adds complexity and depth wherever it goes.
I really do prefer it over chocolate.
I only know the other way around. Vanilla ice cream with chocolate syrup is great.
Isn’t vanilla made from beaver ass holes or something
Chocolate is terrible. Vanilla and especially strawberry are good.
Stop trying to make “objectively” the new “literally”
edit: nvm, I see you’re just doing some good trolling. gg
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.
I think it’s just fun to see Christian Bale convincingly play a psychopath lol
You can also see him play a psycho behind the scenes of “Terminator Salvation”.
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.
I don’t hate it. It’s just a massive let down.
What about it was a let down to you? To me, there’s so many quotable moments and the acting is great. The whole thing is dark as hell while somehow being hilarious. It even leaves some things open to interpretation
This is from me in another thread:
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.
Totally fair. Out of curiosity what movies are your favourites? I assume a Clockwork Orange given your username, which I fully endorse haha. Great movie
Oh, tough one. A clockwork orange is certainly up there. 2001 is also another great one. “The man who wasn’t there” is a neo noir gem that’s underrated and I keep coming back to — most of the time watching desaturated in black and white. Alien, Blade Runner, and Her tied for sci-fi (very different sub genres). The good, the bad, and the ugly. Requiem for a dream.
Damn, the list goes on and on. What about you?
Oh 2001 is great. I haven’t seen The man who wasn’t there or many other neo noirs but Blade Runner and Her are some really good movies. Requiem for a Dream is actually in my top ten personally as well.
I’m generally a fan of weird horror though. Some of my personal favourites are In the Mouth of Madness, Eyes Wide Shut, Antichrist, Little Bone Lodge. Outside of horror I really like dramatizations of history like Judas and the Black Messiah, BlacKkKlansman, Gangs of New York, The King, etc.
Then there’s the classics like the original Wicker Man, They Live, Scarface, Se7en, Inglorious Basterds, Fear and Loathing and all those… (edit: and of course, American Psycho)
I have too many movies saved to my favourites on Jellyfin apparently.
Semi related but if you’re ever in the mood for a super cheesy horror comedy, I can recommend Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter :). I’m biased because it was filmed in my city
Our tastes match a lot. There’s more than one recommendation to add to my list in your comment. Thanks and happy new year!
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.
It reminds me of that Trump movie that came out recently. 80s Trump was exactly the kind of guy that Patrick Bateman is a parody of.
Exactly perfect example people that are so insecure in who they are and lack any character they will kill to keep their delusions going.
You could try the book… The movie is quite tame compared to the book though. It sketches a very detailed look into the time as well. Iirc there are about five pages in wich Bateman explains why he loves certain music albums. And of course his whole morning routine… I really liked it.
Gods no, I hated him explaining music in the movie. I get that it’s important to highlight how he’s just pretending to be human while parroting stuff some critic wrote, but ugh…
Buttoning up his raincoat while reciting a critique of Genesis, solid gold.
Why do you feel it was bad?
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.
Why do you think it’s bad?
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.
I think you can in Europe.
Idon’t think so seems like whelemed and overwhelmed mean the same thing but whelm is out of usage https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/19430/why-do-people-say-over-and-underwhelmed-but-never-just-whelmed
It is a quote from the movie “10 Things I Hate About You” which I have seen more times than I can count.
You’re free to be overwhelmed, whelmed, or underwhelmed in any country! It’s just uncommon to remove any prefix from whelm.
It is a quote from the movie “10 Things I Hate About You” which I have seen more times than I can count.
There’s also overwhelm as well! Cool thing about most prefixes in English is that they can be changed out for other prefixes or completely removed. Though, one wouldn’t quite hear somebody say antiwhelmed there’s still nothing against it.
Whelmed is a perfect description for how I felt about many movies (thanks for that!), but this one just underwhelmed me.
I like some scenes but not the movie as a whole.
