Novel vs. Movie

 
    • Delpen ha detto...
    • Utente
    • Nov 4 2007, 16:44

    Novel vs. Movie

    Did you all read the novel or did you just see the movie? What do you think about the movie if you've read the novel, as well?

    I for my part think that the movie sucked ass. The brutality was cut out, as well as some of the greatest scenes from the book. Also the movie suggests that Bateman didn't commit those murders at all, in the and, and the novel didn't. At least not so strongly, which is why you can't come up with an answer to that question. You can just believe he did or believe he did not.
    There are some other things I didn't like in the movie, but I'll leave it at is for now. I might add something later.

    Anyway, if anyone didn't read the novel, I strongly suggest you do. It's one of the best I've ever read.
    The movie is really weak compared to the book.

    • [Utente eliminato] ha detto...
    • Utente
    • Gen 10 2008, 21:42
    Well, what can I say? I love the movie, it never gets boring and even though you don't see much of Bateman's psychotich tendencies you certainly can enjoy it. Funny thing about the novel is that Bale's stepmother opossed the release of the book, because of the violence portrayed towards women, and yet the main part, the vice president of Pierce&Pierce is Christian Bale.

    Even though sometimes in the book you can see that Bateman is esentially just insane killer, you can still laugh at what he does, smile in an act of kindness, pretend you're a doctor in a zoo...

    • [Utente eliminato] ha detto...
    • Utente
    • Feb 6 2008, 11:16
    In many cases the book is better than the movie made based on it, and this is too. But don’t get me wrong, I also loved the movie, mostly because of the excellent actor choices and the quotes that had been taken from the book.

    The novel is extremely funny in some parts, critical, gruesome, and explicit depiction of sexual torture and violent murders. In the novel you can realize better that Bateman believes that life is pointless because he can do whatever he wants with no consequences.

    Also in the novel the horror is more real, and it’s great that it is written in the first person. Sometimes it is not what it seems – Patrick may (or may not be, such is the ambiguity of the narration) fantasizing.

    The book is also much darker, and you can really sense the psychological pain Patrick is feeling at time to time. In the book it's more obvious that Patrick is highly psychotic, and the cocaine makes the symptoms even worse.

    • [Utente eliminato] ha detto...
    • Utente
    • Apr 10 2008, 1:52
    While I have yet to read the book, the movie was quite excellent. It's obvious that Patrick has a narcissistic behaviour, but I was talking with my psychology teacher and we came to a conclusion that he had schizophrenia. While I haven't read the book, the movie makes it seem as though he imagines all the killings; which is why we came to the thought of Patrick having schizophrenia. From what you guys have said, and what I've heard from a friend, the book sounds wonderful in many different ways. As for now, though, the movie is great and entertaining.

    • [Utente eliminato] ha detto...
    • Utente
    • Mag 29 2008, 22:00
    It's hard to make a movie out of that book and I think they tried their best, but, well, imo the book wins.

    • [Utente eliminato] ha detto...
    • Utente
    • Giu 24 2008, 4:34
    Mosquitokillah said:
    It's hard to make a movie out of that book and I think they tried their best, but, well, imo the book wins.


    I totally agree. Most things that were originally a book, game, comic, or anything for that matter generally doesn't roll over well into the cinematic world. Really, you just have to take it as is and realize that it's not going to be nearly as good as what it's trying to be.

    Having read the novel now, I realize that the movie cut back on a lot of the story line from the book and focused more on the killing, but with less brutality.

    • parshul ha detto...
    • Utente
    • Mar 16 2009, 20:47
    I read the book and then saw the movie. I was a bit disappointed by the movie, but I guess it was because the book was shocking enough and hard to reproduce in a movie. Probably the sickest thing I've ever read. I am still not sure whether to put it among my favorites or not. However, it definitely had an impact on me.

    thought's a luxury
  • It would be impossible to present some things from the book in the movie, when AP came out the movie critics were already calling it pornography.
    I gotta go with the book, since it is a masterpiece but the movie is very close to that.
    It is impossible to compare books and movies, totally different things, and OP seriously think before u write the director showed as much as she could, If she would present the killing in zoo or the nailgun murder, or the mouse scene the movie would probably never see the light of day

    I'm in touch with humanity
  • I've been a big Ellis fan ever since the release of his 1991 novel, American Psycho. Before that, I really didn't understand any of his work. Too artsy, too intellectual. It was in American Psycho where Patrick Bateman became more apparent. I think the invention of this character was Ellis' undisputed materpiece. He's an epic meditation on yuppieness. At the same time, Bateman deepens and enriches the meaning of the preceding two novels.

  • The novel, by miles! It's absolute unadulterated brutality!

  • I'm going to want to watch the movie again before I lay down judgment on this but at present, the book seems to have the edge.

Gli utenti anonimi non possono inviare messaggi. Per inserire messaggi nei forum, accedi o crea il tuo account.