WHY IS LIONSGATE REMAKING AMERICAN PSYCHO? BECAUSE. THEY. WANT. TO. FIT. IN.

Just another depressing moment in the constant drip drip drip that is what remains of Hollywood's soul melting away. Bale, the lead in the original, is now a bigger star than ever. Remaking the film at this point in history seems to be an action that screams "we're out of ideas! somebody help!"

Not even Nicholas Winding Refn doing a NC 17 sequel with Bale as Bateman would convince me this would ever be a good idea.

Chtist that sounds just awful.

"Microbudget" nowadays means this thing will probably cost 20 million dollars.

Yeah, when I imagined that as I was typing up the piece I thought "What are they going to work with? Less than a million? How are they going to make the movie with even a small amount of the effects that showed up in the original version that was low budget to begin with?"

"Microbudget" shouldn't be the word they're trying to use. They shouldn't even be saying that. They should just make the movie with a decent sized budget. Daniel Baldwin did bring to my attention an article on Ellis' response and how he won't give Lionsgate permission to redo it unless they go with one of 2 actors he has in mind to play Patrick Bateman, and one of them was in Final Destination 5, and is the obvious better choice of the 2.

So, okay, The Unholy Three (1925) was remade in 1930 (with the same lead). So it's not like there isn't, historically speaking, precedence for this kind of thing (though that remake had a little invention called sound film to at least justify itself), and The Maltese Falcon is a remake, and Lumet remade Cassavetes only nineteen years after the fact and etc, etc....but who fucking cares. This is lazy as fuck. Beyond brand recognition, there is absolutely no reason to remake American Psycho, a book and film more about the 80's than about a serial killer, as a fully contemporary piece. 

By the by, American Psycho is a middling film of noble intent, held together, just fucking barely, by a tour de force lead performance. 

Maybe this could be good. As the story suggests make the movie about the Wall Street mentally of today. I could be open minded, but I would still need a good trailer to convince me. Cast Joel McCale; he could play the role as an evil Jeff Winger. No goatee needed.

I also find the film version of American Psycho to be really funny. That was one of the surprising elements when I first saw it. I didn't expect it to be as humorous as it turned out to be.

There are literally hundreds of reasons nowadays why a Wall Street investor/broker/whatever would go crazy. It would be stupid of them not to address Occupy Wall Street.

Still, I'm not up in arms over this remake. I'm going in with an open mind concerning it.

Honestly, as a huge fan of the novel, I'd totally be down with a new adaptation. Besides Bale's pitch perfect performance as Patrick Bateman, the movie feels rather lacking and doesn't quite have the resonance of the book. However, hearing that this will be set in the modern day means that I doubt there will be any chance of this being good. The setting of the 80s is crucial to the themes of the story. 

I wish I lived in the bizarro world where we had a Bret Easton Ellis written, David Cronenberg directed, Brad Pitt starring American Psycho film from the early 90s. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaz 

Maybe this could be good. As the story suggests make the movie about the Wall Street mentally of today. I could be open minded, but I would still need a good trailer to convince me. Cast Joel McCale; he could play the role as an evil Jeff Winger. No goatee needed.

A lot of things could maybe be good. Of course, you could also be in the middle of principal photography and get a few warning signs, a *little flutter*, and then finally, when you're in the editing bay, you realize the little flutter you felt was your career going into cardiac arrest. I don't care that the material is topical because of what's in the news, and this is not even remake rage b/c I don't dislike remakes, I just loathe laziness, and I cannot see more than that with this news.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoMoreMrNiceGaius 

Honestly, as a huge fan of the novel, I'd totally be down with a new adaptation. Besides Bale's pitch perfect performance as Patrick Bateman, the movie feels rather lacking and doesn't quite have the resonance of the book. However, hearing that this will be set in the modern day means that I doubt there will be any chance of this being good. The setting of the 80s is crucial to the themes of the story. 

 

I wish I lived in the bizarro world where we had a Bret Easton Ellis written, David Cronenberg directed, Brad Pitt starring American Psycho film from the early 90s. 

You'd be looking at a very different version of American Psycho, because to hear Ellis tell it, when he met with Cronenberg, the director basically told him flat out that he planned on excising all of the club scenes b/c he hates the technical pain in the ass challenges they pose. I've become less enamored (or even interested) with the book in the years since I've read it, but that always struck me as maybe kind of wrongheaded seeing as how "the scene" was a major part of the lifestyle as depicted in the book.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny 

You'd be looking at a very different version of American Psycho, because to hear Ellis tell it, when he met with Cronenberg, the director basically told him flat out that he planned on excising all of the club scenes b/c he hates the technical pain in the ass challenges they pose. I've become less enamored (or even interested) with the book in the years since I've read it, but that always struck me as maybe kind of wrongheaded seeing as how "the scene" was a major part of the lifestyle as depicted in the book.

Yeah I have never been able to really track down exactly what Cronenberg had planned for his adaptation, just the vaguest of details. That does seem like a dunderheaded move there, but who am I to argue with Cronenberg? 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rene (Mr.Eko) 
Daniel Baldwin did bring to my attention an article on Ellis' response and how he won't give Lionsgate permission to redo it unless they go with one of 2 actors he has in mind to play Patrick Bateman, and one of them was in Final Destination 5, and is the obvious better choice of the 2.

I'm guessing he was talking about Miles Fisher, who made a pretty awesome American Psycho homage music video for a cover of The Talking Head's "This Must Be the Place."  The guy can pull off a solid Christian Bale impersonation.

The movie really isn't that good, Bale's performance is the only thing that keeps it from imploding. 

I'm neutral on the remake idea.  Honestly I feel the themes of the book are even more relevant today than they were in the 80s, which had the country at Defcon 4 in terms of sickness...we're at Defcon 5 now.

I don't want to see this but I wanna see Colin Firth do this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambler 

The movie really isn't that good, Bale's performance is the only thing that keeps it from imploding. 

I'll go one further and say the book is massively over-rated as well. It's a one joke structure that makes its point in the first hundred pages then spends the rest of the time repeating itself and reveling in immature gore wish fulfillment punctuated by puffing the word count out with long dissertations on brand names and eighties popular culture. 

It's actually not that good - and certainly doesn't deserve a second remake.

Couldn't possibly be as bad as the Mila Kunis American Psycho II: All American Girl. Maybe one of the worst movies I've ever seen, made even more atrocious by the fact that (within the context of its story) it wipes away any ambiguity from the ending of the first movie. 

I'm surprised at the backlash against the first one. It's a great movie, simultaneously revealing hidden truths about the past and prophesying the future. Everyone lay off it.