Any info on American Psycho 2?

[Plexzol87]

Hey I loved the first film and I wanna know when the sequel comes out so I will know If:
PLEASE NOTE THIS IS A SPOILER.
Patrick Batemen really killed those people.
And If MCA will make a UE version of it cause I already own the UNRATED dvd.
thanks guys!

[slasherfan]

The movie is out in the UK Feb 25th and you can pre order it here


http://www.blackstar.co.uk/video/item/7000000068080

[Suicide]

I think it comes out in the US pretty soon, because I read a early review of the "O" dvd and theres a trailer for it on there.
ANyway what I know about it is that Mila Kunis (Jackie from that 70's show) is the only person to ever survive Patrick Bateman. (?)
It has almost nothing to do with American Psycho at all. Christian Bale is not in it, and the only thing to do with the first one is a flashback with some asshole as Bateman. It also has that dingleberry Shatner in it, so that can't be good.
It sounds like one of those slightly erotic thriller movies with Richard Grieco or some other non actor in it. It should be decent, but I really like Mila Kunis so that's the only reason I'll be seeing it.

[Werner Von Wallenrod]

It's gonna suuuuuuuck.
First Less Than Zero and now this... Bret Easton Ellis should sue all of Hollywood.
Sigh...
What are the chances Roger Avary (Killing Zoe, Phatasm's End) and James van der Beek's Rules of Attraction adaption will be any good?

[hassan chaup]

I agree Werner, I adore Mila Kunis so I will take a look but it is straight to video here in the states and essentially unrelated to the first. Odds are it blows.

[ScaryMovieFreak]

If it's straight to video then I'll rent it. I liked the first, but this one doesn't sound very good.

[TobalRox]

I have a question about straight to video movies... I mean, other than the Disney sequels, do companies really make money on these? I just never saw the point in it.

[Mattster]

The sequel is ridiculous. Patrick Bateman did NOT kill anyone. It was all in his mind. There is no "survivor" because he never attacked anyone. Also, from what I've read, the time period is inconsistent with that of the original.

[Suicide]

Being that I work at a video store, I think I can answer your Direct to video question. I've noticed that there are a lot of people who come in to the video store every week and rent whatever is new. If only one "big" movie comes out a week, this week it's Captain Correli's Mandolin (how Ghost World only has 10 copies at my store and Correli has 100 is beyond me) then they Have to rent like 2 more so they walk around, "Oh, U.S. Seals 2, oh neat Kung-Fu navy guys, well I bet that sucks but there's nothing else so what the hell. Then there's the foolish horror fans like myself who get excited whenever a horror movie comes out even if it sucks. Of course I'm usually disappointed but still. So if there are people who get excited about new horror movies, then there are those who are excited about shitty action movies. And so forth.

Well looking back that probably only mildly helps, if at all. Oh well, I tried. By the way rent or buy Ghost World. Not horror, but I think alot of people here should like it. Hell of a movie.

______________________________________________
"People think I'm peculiar because I still live with my
mother. So what if she's been dead for 15 years."

[Werner Von Wallenrod]

DTV movies are pretty much guaranteed to make a profit if they can get Blockbuster &/ or Hollywood video to stock them. That's really all they need...
To be fair, the "all in his head" idea is much more of an issue in the film than the novel. From the novel, the interpretation that it isn't all in his head is a lot more valid. ...Or, maybe I'm just stupid.
Anyway, Ghost World f'in' rocks the house.

[ParmagentoCheez]

Originally posted by Matt85
The sequel is ridiculous. Patrick Bateman did NOT kill anyone. It was all in his mind. There is no "survivor" because he never attacked anyone. Also, from what I've read, the time period is inconsistent with that of the original.

huh? wow. watch it again or try reading the book. its about a self-obsessed yuppie nut with a materialism fetish who murders people. sort of about the evils of objectifying people through materialism. it SURE as HELL is NOT about a new york yuppie with an overactive imagination. duh.

but, the sequel WILL suck. and that swamp rat Kunis is a little toad, not a hottie.

[hassan chaup]

I guess me likes da swampies den!:p Some toads make ya trip when you lick em.:D

[ParmagentoCheez]

if licking kunis' head will take me on a psychedelic trip, then count me in. as long as i don't have to fuck her! :D

[Suicide]

I just saw the trailer yesterday. I should probably have been working instead of watching movies. Anyway it doesn't look too promising for the lovely Mila's leading film debut. It looked kinda silly. I mean American Psycho had it's funny bits, but that was a quality movie, and the funny stuff was pretty dark and mean. This second one looks to be pretty shabby. Oh well I'm renting it when it comes out, but I do get it for free so I guess that's not saying much.


__________________________________________
"Its like I always say, Take my life, please."

[joltaddict]

Originally posted by ParmagentoCheez
huh? wow. watch it again or try reading the book. its about a self-obsessed yuppie nut with a materialism fetish who murders people.

Its a literary device called an unreliable narrator. So youre both wrong. And youre both right. The book is all first person from a delusional mind. There is no way of knowing how much is fantasy and how much is reality. There is a point in the novel where the delusions are so strong you have no choice but to accept that Patricks reality is not the same one the rest of the world lives in. Re-read the passage with the shoot out and police chase. Its clearly written to cause a loss of faith in the reliabilty of the narrator.

The materialism themes in the novel are certainly present but not the overriding theme and it doesnt mean that Patrick did all the deeds he thinks he did. But does it really matter if Partick really raped a woman with a rat? Its a guided tour through a sick mind.

[ParmagentoCheez]

i always thought that in the book, patrick was floored by his inability to GET CAUGHT. he confesses to the lawyer, he has a shoot out with the cops, he returns to the guys apartment and its been cleaned up. so, you're BOTH wrong. his fellow yuppies who owned the apartment cleaned it up because (and this is the ROOT of the book), they're all desensitized yuppies too and they hate ANY mucking about in their "society", hence the stern warning that patrick never show his face there again. even the chinese laundry people never gave his bloody sheets a second glance. why? not because the blood ISN'T there, its because BRET was illustrating that money is the motivator and everything else is subservient to that. patrick WAS untouchable, literally. read it again.:o

[joltaddict]

Thats an overly simplistic analysis. Because you interpret the laundry people's reactions as such doesnt make it so. There is absolutely NOTHING in the text to support that. If anything the total over-the-top-ness of the police shootout supports the case that Patrick is more delusional than we have been lead to believe up to that point in the story. Its designed to make you question the veracity of everything that has occurred previously. Unlike the movie the book NEVER deviates from the first person narrative. The structure of the book as a whole, from the 1st person perspective right down to the way the incidents build to a point of straining credibility is deliberate. I dont know how you can make the case that none of the narrative is the product of Patricks psychosis unless you are just vested in your opinion. There is nothing wrong with taking that stance if thats what gives you the most pleasure out of the art, (whether we are talking about literature, paintings, or movies) but to state that its the only conclusion is flat out wrong.

[ParmagentoCheez]

jolt, of course i'm not ruling the law of the subjective land with a wave of my gauntlet. duh. but, bret easton ellis wrote a book about a homophobic materially obsessed yuppie who objectifies people so much that he murders them almost unconsciously, to the point where business cards weigh more heavily on his mind. he did not write a typical I-wonder-if-the-killer-is-a-killer book about invisible psychonomics. the book is a treatise about how much he hated the yuppy scene of the 80's, that much is undisputed fact. but i find it VERY hard to swallow the view that bret wrote this book with the intention of patricks reality being subjective. the whole dick-twiddling of "is Patrick a killer?" would take energy away from what the book was really about and take away the intention of the book. if you think it's all in patricks mind thats fine and fair, but beleiving that bret would write a "not-the-killer-book" and detract from his socialogical statement is something i really can't find ANY weight in. sorry. :(

[Mattster]

Originally posted by ParmagentoCheez


huh? wow. watch it again or try reading the book. its about a self-obsessed yuppie nut with a materialism fetish who murders people. sort of about the evils of objectifying people through materialism. it SURE as HELL is NOT about a new york yuppie with an overactive imagination. duh.

but, the sequel WILL suck. and that swamp rat Kunis is a little toad, not a hottie.

I'm afraid you're wrong. The author even stated his confusion over the sequel. Who would know better than the author himself?

[joltaddict]

Originally posted by ParmagentoCheez
i find it VERY hard to swallow the view that bret wrote this book with the intention of patricks reality being subjective. the whole dick-twiddling of "is Patrick a killer?" would take energy away from what the book was really about and take away the intention of the book. if you think it's all in patricks mind thats fine and fair, but beleiving that bret would write a "not-the-killer-book" and detract from his socialogical statement is something i really can't find ANY weight in. sorry. :(

I dont think it detracts from the sociological themes in the least. Most really good lit works on multiple levels.

Im just saying you cant dismiss the possibility of it all being in Bateman's head. You cant say the statement of his subjective reality is 'wrong' unless youre prepared to say things that clearly did not happen did. Did the ATM really tell him to feed it a cat? Its not a major plot point but it is a clear signal to the reader that the filter youre getting the story through isnt all that crystal.

[Werner Von Wallenrod]

Either interpretation could be supported (as to whether it was all in his head or not...). As Jolt said, it's really totally irrelevant... in the book.
The film went out of its way to suggest to suggest that it's all in the killer's head (in fact, I believe she says as much in the supplemental material of the DVD)... Just one of the little things to show how the director/ writers kinda missed the boat with this adaption.
But Christian Bale rocked, the film had a great look, a lot of moments were successfully ported over to the film, so I'm not too mad at it.
The sequel, however... Ho' boy.

[Plexzol87]

So what you guys are saying is it's up to us, and the Sequel should be on DVD soon.
Cool, I hope it's halfway good.

[jeffschmidt]

It had never crossed my mind that Patrick Bateman wasn't really committing all of the crimes he speaks about in the book (which is immensely better than the movie, btw, although the movie's not terrible).

I thought the absurdity of the violence, such as the shoot-out, served not to cast doubt on whether this was really happening, but to emphasise that Patrick could get away with anything due to his money/social standing.

I can't buy the "not really happening" theory :confused:

[ParmagentoCheez]

Originally posted by jeffschmidt
It had never crossed my mind that Patrick Bateman wasn't really committing all of the crimes he speaks about in the book (which is immensely better than the movie, btw, although the movie's not terrible).

I thought the absurdity of the violence, such as the shoot-out, served not to cast doubt on whether this was really happening, but to emphasise that Patrick could get away with anything due to his money/social standing.

I can't buy the "not really happening" theory :confused:

exactly! :D

[Werner Von Wallenrod]

The whole "is it all in his head?" thing IS suggested in the film, but not the original novel... It's just another example of how Turner and Harron missed with their adaption.
Don't let that stop you from seeing I Shot Andy Warhol, though. :)

[joltaddict]

Originally posted by Werner Von Wallenrod
The whole "is it all in his head?" thing IS suggested in the film, but not the original novel...

I would say its considerably more clear in the novel that Patrick is unable to differentiate between fantasy and reality than the movie.

But for you guys saying none of the flick was in Patricks head then I take it youre saying the ATM really did tell him to feed it a cat.

???

[Werner Von Wallenrod]

But for you guys saying none of the flick was in Patricks head then I take it youre saying the ATM really did tell him to feed it a cat.
No, that's not what I mean... I mean the question of whether everything is all in Bateman's head or not is an unexplored, irrelevant (well, the latter being a judgement call, I suppose) issue; whereas the movie makes a point of asking the question.
Look at the themes and the messages of the novel. Does it matter if everything is all in Bateman's head or not? No. Which is why Ellis doesn't give it lip-service (stupid expression; but I'm using it anyway :) ). The fact that Turner and Harron wnent out of their way to go there is (one of the reasons) why I feel they missed the mark with their adaptation.
...Plus, they left out all the cool parts and stole gags from the Texas Chainsaw Massacres & Hollywood Chainsaw Hookers. ;)

[joltaddict]

Originally posted by Werner Von Wallenrod
the question of whether everything is all in Bateman's head or not is an unexplored, irrelevant issue

Ahhh, my mistake. On that point I couldnt agree more. No matter whats going on in the external world all of this is absolutely real to Bateman. You can go into a whole metaphysical discussion of perception versus reality, but the bottom line is the narrative IS his reality.

So I totally agree with you.