10 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
10/10
The Most Complete of Vampire Films
11 February 2001
The vampire genre has seen its share of lackluster films. Indeed, the centerpiece of the grand tradition, the Dracula legend, has seen so many remakes and revisionist attempts that one would be hard pressed to find a version of the tale that is original in its telling. Dracula, like it or not, is a cornerstone of Western society. And it is wholly unfortunate that Bela Lugosi is considered THE Dracula (although Hammer fans may contend that Christopher Lee holds the title since he played the good Count over twenty times).

With Werner Herzog's "Nosferatu: Phantom der Nacht" (also known as "Nosferatu: The Vampyre"), the old Hollywood rules seem to have been thrown out the window in favor of F.W. Murnau's striking silent film, the 1922 masterpiece "Nosferatu: Eine Symphonie der Grauens" ("Nosferatu: A Symphony of Terror"). While many purists of the genre balk at the idea of favoring the Nosferatu tale over the time-tested Tod Browning and Terence Fisher entries, one must realize that the cape-clad widow's peak Count has been sullied by a thousand parodies over time, and is simply not a frightening entity any longer. This was a matter much pondered by Francis Ford Coppola when considering his adaptation. While Gary Oldman's portrayal was serviceable and definitely different, something key was lacking from the tale.

This is what Herzog and his long-time "trouble and strife" lead man Klaus Kinski found when they ventured upon the "Nosferatu" remake. Herzog shifted the attention of the viewer away from the plot, which acts mostly as a backdrop for the imagery, and made it so the primary intake becomes a visual one. Kinski's Dracula is not the scowling insect of the Murnau film. He portrays the Count in a way that no other actor has quite grasped. In this film, Dracula is a suffering being, loathing every moment of his curse's continuation. Of course, as the good Count himself states, "Young men. You are like the villagers. and cannot place yourself in the soul of the hunter." The vampyre is trapped by his instincts, and Kinski's eyes betray harrowing madness (as they did in "Aguirre, der Zorn Gottes"), spiteful malice, and a sorrow so bottomless it defies description. It is as if the beast wishes to weep, but has forgotten how.

Filming on location in Germany, Herzog uses the same dreamlike camera angles, mixing them with a rich color palette and masterful lighting. There is a certain uneasiness that filters outward from the screen as you watch. As Jonathan Harker explores his surroundings during his lodging at Castle Dracula, there is inexplicably a young gypsy boy incessantly playing a scratchy violin under the archway. The surreality of the picture is only matched by its attention to the dark magic of the vampire. Like its predecessor, it actually seems to believe in the creatures, and respects them. It holds the legend, the plight of the people of Wismar, and the plight of the Count himself in deep reverence.

What can be extracted from the dialogue and plot is that this is not your average bloodsuckers extravaganza. In fact, the good Count only sets his fangs to the throat of the living once on screen, and when that occurs, it lends more of a feeling of sacrifice and sorrow than of terror. Indeed, the tone of the film is driven toward tragedy, and does not shift its course. One of the film's more telling moments is when Dracula, alone with Harker's beloved Lucy, ventures to plead with the beautiful lady, "Will you come to me. become my ally? Bring salvation to your husband. and to me. The absence of love. is the most abject pain." When she refuses, he does not lash out or decide to make a meal of her then and there. He instead moans with the intonation of a wounded animal and slinks off into the night.

"Nosferatu: Phantom der Nacht" is the most complete of vampire films, and towers over the genre. It could be considered a pity that the only film that sits upon its coattails is its predecessor of the same name. Under Herzog's direction (wisely choosing to avoid remaking classic shots), we get an entirely different film that exudes an entirely different feeling. It not only maintains the eerie horror that the genre deserves, but also achieves a beauty and mystique that has been lost over the years. A must-see.
172 out of 194 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
I simply don't see the value.
3 February 2001
Let me first say that I am not a Christian. I do not subscribe to any religion, and my views of the Book of Revelation are preterest at most. I am, however, a lover of film. And let me be the next to say that this film is awful. Abysmal. Worse than "The Omega Code", and that's a bad thing. Kirk Cameron's "performance" was leagues worse than the insipid acting effort put forth by Casper Van Dien, and THAT is definitely a bad thing.

Take the location of the shoots. Much of this film takes place in Israel or the United States. This film was shot entirely inside Canada. I'm sorry, but Saskatchewan wheat fields simply do not resemble the Israeli landscape in even the most far-fetched scope of imagination (which this film asks the viewer to entertain throughout).

The most infuriating thing about this film is that it WILL win awards, mostly from the Protestant groups that applaud its very existence. This is the same reason that the horribly written and conceived books sell millions. As an aspiring novelist, this also makes me ill. To all the fans of the books and movie, think about this:

How many times have you seen a straight-to-video movie muscle its way into the theaters? I hope beyond hope that it fails dismally. 1 star (I'd give it none if there was an option).
12 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Cell (2000)
9/10
A Dance in the Mind of Madness
18 August 2000
This film is simply amazing as both a story and as a visual wonderland. The entire film is a long, brutal dance with evil that is ever-present, but always a bit untouchable.

"The Cell" has forever changed my opinion on first-time directors, as I now view Tarsem Singh as one of two things: 1) A madman with flashes of brilliance or, 2) A brilliant director who has been lost in the world of music videos and commercials. He truly could be one or the other. The outcome of his first foray into major film direction is a breath of fresh air blown directly into the lungs of a disappointing summer crop stagnating with useless special effects and jokes involving anal cavities.

As far as plot goes, this one has it in spades. "The Cell" is actually three stories at once, intertwining seamlessly (albeit through the use of jump cuts, which I'm not too fond of)into one frightening journey. The time is the near future. Jennifer Lopez (in a surprising turn toward competent acting) plays Catherine Deane, a child therapist who has volunteered to help a comatose boy escape his neverending dream by linking to his inner mind. She does this by utilizing new technology which allows her to enter the boy's world. But this is not the problem. At the same time, a serial killer has recklessly dumped the body of a young girl in a shallow stream. Using slim clues, the FBI captures him, but only after a freak aneurysm brought on by acute schizophrenia renders him permenently comatose. Enter the new technique.

What follows, as the FBI races to discover the latest girl the killer has condemned to death, is an absolute masterpiece of cinematography and visual effects. The world inside the mind of the killer (played by a vicious Vincent Donofrio) is like a mix of Salvador Dali's paintings and German S&M theater. Lopez, aided by a nervous but focused Vince Vaughn, delves into the the darker corners of the killer's delusions, which are stalked by a dark, majestic being that represents the killer's dark side.

My hat is off to the director, screenwriter and cinematographer of this film. They deserve several oscar nominations, and some wins as well.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
X-Men (2000)
8/10
A Faithful, Refreshing Adaptation
21 July 2000
I have been an X-Fan (although I've been out of the comic game for some time now) for years, and I join the legions of my ilk that claim to have been waiting for this 10 years or longer. This is no exaggeration. Hailing back to the days of yore, when Wizard was but a young magazine, posting a fantasy Casting Call for the then-impossible X-Movie (a cast which I believe included Alan Rickman as Magneto), fans have been chomping at the bit for any sliver of information that was in existence. For years, the loyal waited in the wings, watching in silent horror as the project was scrapped not once, but twice.

Thankfully, the film has indeed arrived, poised to satiate the literally millions of fans out there. What was the end result? We'll get to that in a minute.

The superhero genre has experienced a bit of a quagmire as of late, with wretched entries like "Steel" and "Batman and Robin" (Note: Joel Schumacher should be publicly whipped). Ever since the release of "Batman Forever", the genre has been on a general down swing. I'm not saying that they were all that good to begin with, but let's face the facts. Since the release of said Batman film, the awful PG-13 rated "Spawn", and terribly acted "Blade" have been the high points in the superhero world. "Batman and Robin" was simply the final straw. The superhero genre was dying. It needed a hero of it's own to save it.

Enter "X-Men". No adulation, no zealotry to mask this opinion: "X-Men" is amazing. Finally, someone figured out that it is not special effects and one-liners that make for good film. The secret lies in ACTING. "X-Men", while remaining letter perfect to the mannerisms and behavior patterns of the characters, removes the painfully unbelievable aspects of the comic, while retaining the same overall feeling.

Patrick Stewart, the man born to play Charles Xavier, delivers a predictably wonderful performance as the old Prof, displaying all the aspects necessary to his character. Ian McKellen, who I admit would not have been my first choice (although it is now), plays the PERFECT Magneto. Cyclops (James Mardsen) and Jean Grey (Famke Janssen) fit in to the puzzle naturally, and play their roles to a tee. Ray Park (martial arts master best known as Darth Maul) is actually given a chance to act as Toad, and through his limited lines, he does very well, adding a bit of wicked comedy to the script. The most improved character is definitely Rogue, who always annoyed me in any other incarnation. Anna Paquin shows off some of that Oscar winning charm as a young Rogue, and displays the hopelessness of her situation in an almost heart-wrenching way (not quite your typical superhero scenario, eh?).

But (here it comes), no one stands out more than Hugh Jackman. One statement, if I may: Hugh Jackman IS Wolverine. Can you believe they found this guy doing Off Broadway in Canada? He was cast as the MOST DIFFICULT ROLE in the MOST POPULAR COMIC BOOK ADAPTATION EVER. Fanboys were screaming for blood when they saw the first publicity shots. Where are they now? Shelling out eight bucks to see him in action again.

In closing, "X-Men", while admittedly imperfect, is the model by which all superhero films should be made. Studios with films of this genre slated "In Production" should be lining up to kiss Bryan Singer's feet. Go see this film. You owe it to yourself.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Red Zone Cuba (1966)
1/10
Absolutely the worst film ever conceived. Period.
21 July 2000
I am puzzled as to what dribbling, moronic, half brained studio exec gave this one the go-ahead. Whoever he was, I hope he suffered as much as I'm sure actor, writer, and director Coleman Francis did after this was released. I'm going to go into some detail, and ruin the ending... or whatever it was. So, if you're squirming in your seat to see this film, don't read any further... OK, now that that guy's gone, the rest of us can get to business.

From the very opening, in which we're vaguely introduced to a grizzled John Carradine (as Servo says, when isn't he grizzled?), and then literally thrown into some kind of vertigo world flashback. When I say "thrown", of course I truly mean, "torturously dragged". This is no exaggeration, people. At the beginning of Griffin's "journey", it's difficult to tell just what time period the film is set in. I was dead set on depression-era until they started talking about Cuba.

When I say "talking about Cuba", I mean that the main characters (if you want to give them the distinction of being characters) meander to some out of the way airport and simply ask to be taken to where the army is training men to go to Cuba. Was this EVER discussed before it happened? No. And, the two cons (I'm generally assuming that they're cons... I'm not even sure what their names were) traveling with Griffin never knew him beforehand, but seem to follow him like blind puppies. On top of this, there's some half-assed sympathy factor we're supposed to feel for the lieutenant of this mission, seeing as his grandparents willed him some land in Cuba, and now he can't claim it because of the big, bad commies.

Of course, the lieutenant (or whatever he was) is killed in Cuba (although I don't remember seeing him die). It's also almost hilarious that Cuba looks exactly the same as any of the other sets in the movie. Almost. So, after the mission, which consisted of a maximum of 12 guys fighting the entire Cuban army, and a really BAD Fidel Castro, something happens.

Or should I say, nothing happens. Lo and behold, we're back in the states (or the vertigo world, since NOTHING MAKES SENSE) and the three wanderers proceed to beat up John Carradine (for no reason), hijack a train (supposedly what the movie was really supposed to be about), and arrive at the home of their dead and beloved lieutenant (the same guy Griffin tried to strangle... he has a habit of doing that, though). They meet his wife, who doesn't seem to be grieving too much, and suddenly, and I mean RIGHT OUT O' THE FRIGGIN' BLUE, they're talking about finding gold on a mountain.

From this point on, nothing is coherent (was it ever?). They arrive on the mountain, the cops show up, Griffin takes off running. Suddenly, the others are nowhere to be seen, Griffin's back where the movie started, and he's shot down. The film ends with the line: "Griffin ran all the way to Hell, for a couple pennies and a broken cigarette."

Sums up the experience of the film, since the items mentioned are worthless. I sincerely hope someone was hanged for making this monstrosity. Whether it's "Night Train to Mundo Fine" or "Red Zone Cuba", the result is the same. Joel and the bots can't even make this film worthwhile. AVOID AT ALL COSTS.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Shining (1997)
When it's Kubrick vs. King...
6 July 2000
A single statement: No film will be done justice if produced for a network. The censorship laws will simply not allow it. This is why I'm so perplexed as to why Stephen King has done two of his most prolific novels ("The Stand" and "The Shining") through network miniseries format. There's also one other reality our dear Mr. King is going to have to realize: While cornering the market on the written word, King's ideas fall as flat as two-day old soda on the big screen. The horrific adaptation of "Pet Sematary" and the cornball delivery of "The Stand" are just testaments that SK's books should remain locked in the binding. "The Green Mile" is the ONLY true-to-book adaptation of a King novel, and that's just because the director and studio deemed it necessary. I have heard an exorbitant amount of comparison between the miniseries "The Shining" and the Kubrick film, or the lack thereof, to be more precise. King has often said that he didn't like the 1980 film, and it should be used as an example of how not to make a horror film. King should realize that Stanley Kubrick's "The Shining", while deviating from aspects of the author's story and changing the end, is still better than his own vision of the adaptation. As a King fan, one becomes aware of a certain mystique that makes his books addictive. However, seeing his films make one realize that King has quite a different opinion on the delivery of his work, as opposed to the darker opinions of his readers. In 1980, Stanley Kubrick presented the world with the first epic horror film. The fact that he changed the story and ending are dismissable, simply because Kubrick removed the useless flab from a mass of back story and (forgive me) somewhat cheesy happenings in the Overlook. The Kubrick film is better for two reasons: 1) It's a dark, moody descent into madness. The cinematography in Kubrick's film is revolutionary. King's own brainchild is lumbering and standard fare. 2) The ending of Kubrick's film is simply better. It's incredibly distrubing, whereas King's thoughts on the end of Jack Torrance's odyssey are somewhat... more redeeming. One gets the idea from Kubrick that the Overlook's evil is insurmountable and, indeed, necessary. King's conclusion is the common end of good overcoming evil, etc. End result -- When it's Kubrick vs. King, good ol' Stanley (R.I.P.) comes out on top. Regardless of whether King originated the story, Kubrick delivered it to glory, and made it an instant classic. King merely proved he could make a version of the film himself, and make the effort seem completely unnecessary in the process.
161 out of 250 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Xenogears (1998 Video Game)
10/10
Square's crowning achievement in complexity; A Masterpiece.
13 June 2000
The opening of Xenogears is a lavish CGI sequence spliced with anime that begins with the famous biblical line: "I am Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last." The cryptic events of the opening scenes (the tragedy of the Eldridge, and the emergence of the woman from the wreckage on the beach) lead into events that take place nearly 10,000 years later.

Following a lengthy exposition in text, the story leads to a small village on the border of the kingdom of Aveh and the Kislev Empire (the two warring nations) named Lahan. And the tale of Fei Fong Wong begins.

The general feeling at the outset of the game is one that is familiar in the realm of RPGs: Young man with amnesia involved somehow in the fate of the world. We've seen it a thousand times. However, the gods at Square turn the tables very early in the game, adding heart-wrenching tragedy to the carefree world Fei inhabits. Very soon, the once two dimensional plot gains a considerable amount of depth. Fei begins to doubt himself and his past as more and more becomes known to him about the truth... of everything.

This game literally has everything: Great villains (Grahf, Id, Ramsus, Miang), memorable characters (Wiseman, Zephyr), a barrage of the most complex plot twists (watch out once the attack against Vanderkaum begins) known in RPG land, and quite possibly the greatest love story a video game has to offer (Fei and Elly were meant to be, and finding out why is one of the most fascinating plot points in RPG history).

True to its tagline ("Stand tall and shake the heavens"), Xenogears delivers a storyline that raises questions about existence, God, and the relevance of religious doctrine. Name-dropping like "Fatima" and "the Magi", backed by inquisition style priests named the Ethos heighten the whole experience to a new, groundbreaking level.

Solidified by a simply sublime soundtrack by Yasunori Mitsuda, Xenogears is one of the best games of all time, and it's a shame that more people don't know that.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Tom Cruise's Ego Trip
27 May 2000
There's no real way to describe how I felt about "Mission: Impossible 2". Perhaps the only way to put it is that if the first film's glaring problem was that there was too much plot, the second film's glaring error is that there is too little plot. Bottom line, "M:I-2" simply can't be held afloat by its special effects alone.

However, the action sequences are what makes this movie a benchmark for future directing. Employing bullet time photography (last seen in "The Matrix"), the special effects team has created the most amazing action sequences this side of "Gladiator". As a requisite of the filmmaking techniques of John Woo ("Broken Arrow", "Face/Off"), "M:I-2" is chock full of heart stopping action, accompanied by the presence of white doves fleeing battle, and enough over-dramatism to make Baz Luhrmann blush.

The main problem lies in the same fact that made "Battlefield: Earth" a terrible miscalculation: The ability of big name stars to produce their very own pet projects. Tom Cruise obviously had a little more than a lot to do with the way in which the film was put together. The entire plot revolves around his character, the neo-Bond IMF agent, Ethan Hunt. Cruise claims that the only thing that remains the same about his character is the name. He's right in that respect. Gone is the clean cut, debonair but calculating, and most importantly, vulnerable, Ethan Hunt. Arriving out of left field is the brand new, so fearless he's almost stupid, "I would do anything for love" Ethan Hunt.

Just on an up note, the stunts in this film are simply amazing. I would like to extend my personal kudos to Tom Cruise for volunteering to do the rock climbing scene himself. John Woo wanted to make himself perfectly clear when stating that all the stunts were done old-fashioned, and were only "slightly" enhanced by CGI manipulation.

I am personally unsure of what point was being made by the production of this film. What it boils down to is the shameless use of two hours and ten minutes as a vehicle for new special effects techniques. Making her appearance as Nyah, an internationally renowned thief and love interest of Mr. Hunt, is Thandie Newton. While Miss Newton CAN act, she can only do so in the respect that she's the perfect Woo heroine: spunky and sexy. The regrettable fact is that it feels throughout the film that they built a complex, promising plot and realized they had to shave away at it to jam in a hammed up love story.

The presence of Anthony Hopkins is a plus, but it's obvious that he is only present to add another high profile name to the marquee. The sad truth is that Sir Anthony is only given a sparse four or five minutes of screen time.

The final product: This film should have been looked over seriously before release. It's not half as complex as the last film, which will, regrettably, be a plus in the minds of most moviegoers. The overacting is anything but endearing, and the villain is nowhere near believable, but that's Hollywood. The special effects are amazing, but a tad over-the-top (see car chase/carousel ride). And we come to an end result that we should leave the acting to the actors and the directing to the directors. Sorry, Tom. Swinging for the fences doesn't always bring a home run.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
The Worst Film of Ever (Spoilers included)
17 May 2000
Warning: Spoilers
I have seen a great deal of good filmmaking in my time. I have seen wonderful movies that have been presented to me, and that have been my privilege to view. Battlefield: Earth is not one of these films. In fact, if I had not seen Plan 9 From Outer Space, This Island Earth, or The Horror at Party Beach, this film would easily qualify for the worst film I have ever seen. Hell, it still might. Here's a pretty valid way of summing up Battlefield: Earth's plot: Think of all of the worst episodes of great sci-fi series'. Slump them all together into a loose conglomeration with plot holes larger than John Travolta's ego, and there you have it. The only real difference between the two is that the sci-fi episodes still retained good acting of some measurable nature. Not so with the unwashed inhabitants of Battlefield: Earth. Red Dwarf has finer acting than this lump of garbage, and even Doctor Who found better plots than this has to offer. The villains of this piece are the Psychlos, a nasty bunch of greedy, war-mongering idiots, who claim to have wiped out all of Earth's defenses in 9 minutes. And would you believe it, they're over 10 feet tall and have rasta-like dreadlocks! The height of the Psychlos isn't achieved by anything as crass as computer editing, oh no. Each actor portraying a Psychlo is wearing platform shoes. Each Psychlo also has six fingers, now what an oddity! And where do we turn to create this effect? To the computers? Wrong! John Travolta and his unkempt ilk are wearing prosthetics that look cheap enough to be worn on Halloween. The supposed hero of this piece is Johnny `Goodboy' Tyler (the last two names are NEVER mentioned in the film) played by Barry Pepper (of Saving Private Ryan fame). I would suppose that the point of most of the movie was designed for two reasons: 1) To make you feel sorry for the plight of the humans; 2) To move and inspire you with over-the-top rhetoric and exaggerated `heroic' poses. To put any doubt aside, there is absolutely no inspiration in this film. Travolta, Scientologist at large and the film's producer, portrays Terl, a Psychlo bent on being granted reassignment. When it turns out that he's knocked up the only daughter of a notable senator, it seems that he's going to be stuck on Earth for a very long time. So, instead of taking his punishment or sneaking back to Planet Psychlo, he concocts what is perhaps the worst scheme in the history of villainy. His `master plan' is to educate a `man-animal' on the finer points of mining (and, of course, the Psychlo language, the history of the conquests, the finer points of their weaponry, etc.) through the use of a `learning machine'. The point of this is to exploit the large vein of gold he's just discovered outside the Planetship's notice (they actually refer to Planet Psychlo as the `home office'). With the large amount of wealth he will acquire, he plans to buy his way back home. Of course, it's our hero, Johnny, who is chosen to be the lucky man-animal who gets all the book learning. With this newfound information, he decides to incite a revolt, but more on that later. I have some more gritching to do. Gritch #1: Noted actor Forrest Whittaker makes his appearance in this film as Terl's less-than-intelligent assistant, Ker. The money spent on hiring this usually superb actor was wasted. Ker is about as one-dimensional as they come, and Whittaker's acting talent is thrown aside in favor of mindless stupidity and employing him as a useless, lumbering plot device.

Gritch #2: Roger Christian, the film's director , was one of the principle members of the Star Wars Episode I film editing team. This means only one thing: That he is one of two people left in the world who will willingly use screen wipes to change scenes. At least George Lucas has a little creativity. EVERY scene in this movie changes with a vertical center wipe. EVERY SCENE. I could go on and on and on. But I won't waste your time. Back to our noble hero. Johnny, in the tradition of his sci-fi brethren, incites revolt. But wait, he's educated now, and having lived with this education for all of two days, he's figured out a fool proof plan to defeat the hated enemy. By raiding Fort Knox (which is in Kentucky, not Colorado; our Johnny also learned to fly during his two day school session) instead of doing the actual mining, he has time to train his rag tag team of cavemen into a formidable fighting force. Using his `superior' knowledge, Johnny leads his men to the U.S. Armory (which, like Fort Knox, is unlocked) and finds the 1000-year old weapons not only in perfect working order, but polished as well. After seven days of training, Johnny's cavemen are fully proficient in the use of firearms and the operation of Harrier jets, not to mention the single nuclear device that will eventually destroy the Psychlo world. Oh, did I ruin the ending? Good. You won't have to sit through the movie now. Everything from this film is stolen from somewhere else and is delivered in the most unfunny, ham-handed manner possible. The only possible saving grace in this film is the fact that Travolta can be a bit giggle-inducing with his overly devilish performance. However, in even a sub-standard film, his portrayal of a dirty Kilngon-Ferengi love child would be considered the low point. That Terl is the high point of the movie speaks volumes about its greatness in the realm of the Bad Film Graveyard. It will join such films as Ishtar, Beyond the Poseidon Adventure, and End of Days upon arrival. Not even the Church of Scientology can save this film.

Stick a fork in it, and hope it dies.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A Masterpiece of American Psycho-drama
14 April 2000
Patrick Bateman is no ordinary man.

This becomes readily apparent through the voice-over description that Bateman gives the audience as he begins his early morning routine of hygiene and calisthenics. However, the particularly poignant line of this exposition is, "There is no real sense of Patrick Bateman at all."

While critics have said that the film is not nearly as violent as the novel (and this may be true, seeing as this reviewer has not yet read Ellis' book), there's violence, gore, and sexual depravity aplenty in American Psycho.

As the film continues, Bateman's world begins to blur. The line, "I believe that my mask of sanity is beginning to slip," speaks volumes about what will occur during the next hour and a half or so.

Bateman's very existence seems to be one of complete madness, a true psychotic outlook. Also, while talking to friends, or other people, Bateman will spew out the most vile epithets of death and serial murder, all to the surprising complacency of the yuppies that should be mortified by such statements. While having drinks with a business rival, Bateman nonchalantly says, "I enjoy dissecting girls. I'm utterly insane, you know." This elicits no response.

The closest film I can relate this to is last year's The Talented Mr. Ripley. However, what Matt Damon's Oscar snub lacked is what this film had in spades: Humor.

American Psycho is chock full of the darkest comedy around. When asked what he does, Bateman answers, "I'm into murders and executions mostly" (a pun derived from his true profession, "mergers and acquisitions").

I personally don't care if the Oscars are about a year off. Christian Bale is delightfully wicked in this piece, and unless another actor can convince me otherwise in the next eleven months, my vote is for this young actor to walk away with the golden statue in 2001.

For those of you who can analyze the finer points of storytelling, you're in for a real treat. Near the end of the film it becomes difficult to ascertain just what is real and what is imagined, what is atrocity and what is fantasy, what is Patrick Bateman and what is not.

See this film, and leave your own perceptions of reality at the door.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed