great job, period.

Rating: Null/10 (10 October 2000)

I have not read the book, so I cannot write a review that says..."Read the book! You will appreciate the film even more!", or anything.
However, I feel that what this movie was trying to express, I believe it expressed it effectively.
OK, I am not a horror junkie...I'm a romantic comedy person! I hate gory movies, (*hate*), but I'm telling whoever's reading this that hasn't seen it; the movie has no gore in it. Yes, you see blood, but you never see the blood *with* the person it belongs to, if that makes any sense. Sure, there is one scene suggesting a particularly violent chainsaw incident, but you really don't see much...which is *good* =).
I'm not sure why some people thought this was boring... the way the film was directed it was supposed to make you understand how Bateman could possibly become this blood-crazed. Everything around him seems fake, trivial, in excess, or all three. He can't relate to anyone because everyone, even his close colleagues, are stuck on themselves. Someone wrote that they were bored by the film because they felt that everyone was like Bateman; the only difference was that they didn't kill people. Well, I definitely believe that was dir Mary Harron's attempt.

Bateman had to go to extremes; 1 000 crunches a day, watching intense pornographic movies, extreme slasher flicks, dining at the finest restaurants, wearing the finest clothes, having the nicest business card; simply because anything more normal would remind him of the sick and sad decadence of the 80's. The fact that Bateman tells his friend, who does a line of coke and says it's only sweetener, " We'll just have to do more lines , then", exemplifies attitude of going to extremes.
I believe there also *may* be an anti-Republican sentiment in this movie. As Bateman and his friends are admiring Ronald Reagan's speech at the end of the movie, while taking conservative views over political issues scattered sporadically throughout the film, one may assume the cliche that Republicans are the ones with the money who are always seeking to get richer, and who are disgusted by the poor. I don't want to say that the film uses this cliche, but rather suggests it, without abusing its subtlety.

All in all,(like I'm sure is what happens in the book), nothing is really solved as far as a changed man, relief, or even more self-love for Bateman himself. Only more emptiness. I understand that people want some sort of resolution to save their souls after watching a disturbing movie, but come on. His last narration, the last few lines of the movie, explain *why* there is no resolution. To those who haven't yet seen, pay attention to this last scene; it will make you understand why Bateman is a lot more like us than we want to believe!

SPOILER WARNING SPOILER WARNING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I don't know why people get so bent out of shape at how disturbing this film is. It's no more graphic and scary than the violence you see in horror movies today. The only reason it might be more disturbing is because people don't want to find similarities between themselves and Patrick.
What I really don't get is why people don't cut it some slack, since Patrick was dreaming the entire time. It's not like he was *completely* loathing, or he literally got away with murder.
-Sep