I wasn't impressed by this film. I watched it, because i never like half-watched films, but i don't feel i earned anything by watching it. I haven't read the book, so i cannot comment on the content and the plot, and whether the adaptation was good or bad, or if something more could be made out of it
a pretty pointless film. working the narrative backwards to explain HOW it all ended like that it failed to engage me in the problematics of the characters or with what they were after. based on Brett Easton Ellis, the story lacked the humour of AmPsyc, its incisiveness and breadth.
This film still holds up more than ten years after it first came out. Van der Beak is on good form as Patrick "American Psycho" Bateman's brother which he must have films around the same time as the end of Dawson's Creek. A Darkly funny Satire about rich kids at college.
If you really need to watch something bad, I would recommend Street Fighter or the cinema adaptation of Mario Bros as either at least have some kind of a charm to them. Utter waste of time, deeply deranging not through what it is showing but because it is obviously normal to the author, all without the slightest analysis. To keep myself sane, I started assembling IKEA furniture halfway through, so it wasn't all bad
Delicious and Nasty are the right words to use here. This super zeitgeisty and cynical look at rich white American college kids is cool and sexy and stylish, with a killer soundtrack, but always bubbling with anxiety and malaise. You can't look away even if you wanted to, and you don't really want to. It's too good. It's deliciously nasty.
June (?) 2013. Two stars for the movie, one more star for a pretty solid adaption. Gotta admit that this one was quite close to the novel, but seriously, 1. who the hell was responsible for the audition, 2. did this person even read the book and the character descriptions before deciding on each actor and 3. how did Bret Easton Ellis let him/her get away with Lauren being a brunette. Just, HOW?