Casino Royale...

[smash]

I disagree with your critique of American Psycho. I think the movie did an excellent job of translating the book on screen. In some aspects it did better than the book, and in other's it failed; but overall it was a fantastic adaptation.

There was no more deeper character presented in the book. The deeper understanding of the character came out of the reader's interpretation of the character and his motivations. And for me, having seen the film first, I can assure you, I got the idea well enough to develop that deeper interpretation.

[efilflah]

I agree with Smash's disagreeance.

[eamon angelface]

Smash's disagreeance seems to negate Patrick's entire introspective psychological melt down at the end of the book.

The movie just plain missed the mark. It didn't outline any of the critique of capitalism or Ronald R era of politics that birthed people like Patrick's hero Donald Trump. It's amazing how the book became again relevant now.

Patrick Bateman never killed a single person. I am 100% positive and it's not at all subjective. I'm pretty sure of myself on this having met Bret Easton Ellis many times and heard it from the horses mouth (he HATES the movie btw).

And now all the soul-less Patrick Bateman types again have their James Bond hero to imagine they're like instead of just being glorified door to door vacuum salesman.

The movie was more of a one sided character study that referenced the books plot points but forgot the subtext. Mary Harron took the character and obviously contorted him into a piece of shit rather than a victim. Plus a lot of people seemed to come out thinking they're just watched a horror movie about a guy who killed people. It was a shameful adaptation of a great book.

[AngelBaby]

It was a shameful adaptation of a great book.

Having said that, what was your feeling about the movie adaptation of The Rules of Attraction?

[eamon angelface]

Loved it. In absolution. The Rules of Attraction is one of THE BEST adaptations ever.

[smash]

I will give Eamon the nod on the subjectivism on whether or not Bateman actually killed anyone as it appeared in the movie. And perhaps, having seen the movie first, it colored my reading of the novel, because I felt the same subjectivism.

Not being a huge Ellis fan, I won't suppose to know if that was intentional or accidental.

I'll completely disagree with Eamon on the failure to capture the Reagan-era New York. The fawning over the business cards, the meals, the shallow recognization of each other and descriptions... all brilliantly captured on film.

[AngelBaby]

Just curious how many people know that Sean Bateman (The Rules of Attraction) is Patrick Bateman's kid brother?

Also, Robert Avary approached Christian Bale with the idea of having him do a cameo as Patrick in "Rules". Bale declined, Ellis was asked to do the cameo himself, he also declined (calling it "a terrible and gimmicky idea"), and Casper Van Diem shot the scenes...which were left on the cutting room floor (metaphorically speaking, since the entire movie was edited on a Mac using Final Cut Pro ).

Oh, and "The End of the World" party scene sequence was filmed on September 11, 2001.

[eamon angelface]

Roger Avary not Robert.

Casper Van Dien no Diem.

The scenes were from the book. It would have been cool to see Christian Bale but he had obligations and scheduling conflicts.

Ellis being in it was a joke idea thrown around in casual conversation. It's his personal favorite adaptation of his book.

That's why he sold the rights to Roger for Glamorama.

[AngelBaby]

Oops...thx for the catches, Eamon.

I also thought the movie was really good. The whirlwind scene where Victor recounts his trip to Europe is incredible.

Avary is one of my faves, Killing Zoe is an awesome film. Anyone who has not seen it should run out and rent immediately (or add to your Netflix cue).