Watered-down disappointment.

Rating: Null/10 (1 July 2001)

I had high hopes for 'American Psycho' but was largely disappointed. Anyone who has read the book and can still praise this movie is a fool. The whole thing reeks of compromise to me. The book was a satire on 80s yuppie rampant consumerism true, but ALSO an examination of violence. By emphasizing the satire and down-playing the violence (there is very little, and it is largely implied), Mary Harron and Guinevere Turner have turned what could have been a milestone EVENT of confrontational cinema into an average comedy with a few laughs, and less blood than an 'Evil Dead' or Romero zombie flick. While I understand it would be impossible to film the most extreme scenes in the book, I still think more disturbing images were required to make this more than say, The Cell or Hannibal. The audience I watched this with laughed at the corporate culture and Huey Lewis jokes, but they also laughed at Bateman running around with a chainsaw, just like it was Itchy and Scratchy. No-one was DISTURBED or CONFRONTED. Is this the way it was meant to be??
What 'American Psycho' needed was David Cronenberg say, or (and I can't believe I'm typing this!) Oliver Stone. Yeah, Mr.Subtle. But 'American Psycho' ISN'T a subtle book, and the movie cries out for the vision Stone showed in 'J.F.K' and closer to home, 'Natural Born Killers', not the watered-down, playing-it-safe mediocrity we have here.
I must, however, praise Christian Bale's largely excellent William Shatner-esque performance. He tries his best with the material at hand, but as I said, the script just doesn't cut it. Read the book instead.