OK, but it has little to do with the book

Rating: Null/10 (3 June 2000)

I finished the book of this a week before seeing it in the cinema, so I was interested in comparing the two. In summary I found the film was completely untrue to the spirit of the book. Let me explain what I mean by that -
In the book, Patrick Bateman does have severe psychotic episodes, the book also has passages of very dry, ironic humour. These never overlap and are kept as seperate events, this is not so in the film. For example in the film Patrick dances around the room to some 1980's band while repeating a long diatribe about the band before plunging an axe into his male victim. In the book these psychotic events are never portrayed with anything but a straight face. The film by mixing these up tends to trivialise the acts of mental instability.
This apart at least the film wasn't a splatter fest.
Taking the film as just that, without reading the book it is probably quite refreshing. An American film that doesn't have a stereotypical plot with an ending that you can see a mile off.
I guess if you've read the book you'll be dissappointed, otherwise it's a worthwhile 1.75 hours of your time.