Not as good as the novel, but still...

Rating: 8/10 (22 September 2004)

*** Some minor spoilers below ***
I'm a great fan of Ellis' novel, which I recently re-read, and after seeing the movie adaptation for a 2nd time recently, here are some thoughts.
The movie's main problem is that it seems to lack a bit of self-confidence; both in direction and script. It does seem to want to take Ellis' labyrinthine, non-linear (except for sheer chronology) work and turn it into a "normal" 90-minute movie with a beginning, middle & end. Yet it doesn't go all the way there either, which would have required substantial overhaul of the whole storyline and characters. Instead it's a middle route that selects choice material from the novel, and expands some angles to create a narrative arch -- the latter being most obvious in the much expanded part for Detective Kimball, vs the novel where his part barely exists. Unfortunately, Bateman's psychological complex is so vast that it cannot be squeezed into a story about a psychopath scared of getting caught.
While Ellis never fully explains what Bateman is about, he says so much about him in the novel that you feel that it's as close as we're going to get. In the movie OTOH, Bateman is still enigmatic, but with a feel of simplification. On the first view I remember thinking that the movie was too short, and that it had been brutally edited, but on the 2nd time round I see it more as an effect of the choice made for the presentation of Bateman. It may work better if you haven't read the novel, but I doubt it.
OK, on the plus side: Christian Bale does a terrific job, with lots of work put into it. He has developed a whole set of deliberately artificial faces which help illustrate the emptiness of Bateman's inner life. His voice is terrific, and manages to convey contempt and hate even while the face is looking jovial. He's good in the "horror" segments too, truly primitive and more real, as he should be. Very good casting, and an excellent, unusual performance.
The clothes, the hairstyles, the restaurants etc, all look much like they appear in Ellis' novel. I miss the hilarious rundowns of what people are wearing (the single most notable feature of the novel on the first read), but they look right and it's no great loss. Bale in particular is extremely well dressed, even for a "Wall Street" movie, like he should be. His apartment, and Owen's/Allen's look just right too.
One case where I think the movie is *superior* to the novel is in the portrayal of Bateman's female friends, Evelyn and Courtney. In the novel they never become more than shadow creatures, interchangeable despite appearing on many dozens of pages. Thanks to great casting and well-written parts, both Reese Witherspoon and Samanta Mathis manage to give these rich-but-messed up ladies true identities. Bateman's secretary's part is much like the novel, though I think Chloe Sevigny overacts slightly in her mousiness. Another element where the movie may surpass the novel is near the end at the club, where Bateman confronts the lawyer with his confession -- this is a scene that works better as film than literature, and the movie exploits it brilliantly.
Some more complaints: the Kimball cop-hunt angle doesn't really work as stated above, and I also think the gay love angle of Luis Carruthers (which is pretty effective in the novel) becomes meaningless in this drastically shortened version. The part with Christie being chased and having a chainsaw dropped on her is NOT in the novel, and seems wrong for Bateman, who thrives on physical *closeness* to his victims -- this was a real mistake in the script, IMO, esp in such a crucial scene.
All over, the movie is complex and challenging, just like the novel, which is obviously very difficult to adapt. I don't think it holds a candle to Ellis' work, but I still enjoy seeing it. The second half in particular is strong, with the director finding her stride and Bale's carefully developed Bateman fitting in just right.