Add a Review

  • You can just imagine the scene in some movie producers office :

    " You know that movie set in the 1980s where Christian Bale kills his colleagues ? "

    " Yeah vaguely "

    " Well I just wrote the sequel "

    " Is that the one where both Bale's character and Bale himself don't make an appearance , instead we have a teenage bimbo bumping off people she doesn't like ? "

    " Yeah "

    " Then why's your screenplay called TEENAGE BIMBO GOES ON KILLING SPREE ? Shouldn't either the words American or Psycho appear if it's a sequel ? "

    " Hey I never thought of that "

    "And it's probably illegal to call something a sequel if it has absolutely no connection with the original movie "

    " Thanks for pointing that out boss . I'll rewrite the opening scene even if it contradicts the first movie . Let's do lunch "

    I'm sort of guessing the producers had what's known in Britain as " A liquid lunch " or possibly they had something even stronger . As many people on this site have pointed out AP2:AAG not only hints that not only does it have nothing in common with the original movie it also seems to contradict AP . The story centres around Rachael Newman who would have been about four years old during the events of the first film . Why did anyone have to use the character of Patrick Bateman to set up the story here ? It's not even a plausible set up and it's not a plausible story in the first place . Perhaps the most ridiculous thing is how on earth Rachael would be physically able to commit these crimes because Mila Kunis doesn't look an inch taller than five foot , doesn't look an ounce heavier than ninety pounds and yet is able to commit acts of extreme violence with a sharp object . Realising this unlikely scenario the director wisely often cuts to a different scene when Rachael bumps off a victim . But this doesn't stop other massive plot holes like the police not checking for DNA when the victim of a car crash is found at the end of the movie

    AP2:AAG is yet another cynical attempt to sell a stupid movie as a " Black comedy " but this is done in an even more cynical manner since it's a serial killer screenplay marketed as the sequel to a totally unrelated movie . It might have funny moments but these I'm sure are totally unintentional . If you saw the original you will hate this , if you haven't you will still hate this . Perhaps the motive behind it was to make the original appear much better than it actually was . If so then the producers have succeeded
  • I decided to post a comment because there were so many negative ones and this movie really isn't that bad. In fact, it's pretty enjoyable for what it is. What it is not is a true "sequel" - except in name only - to the ultra-violent "American Psycho." In fact, aside from the fact that the main character is supposedly a survivor of Patrick Bateman, this could be a stand alone film. It probably should not have been set up as a sequel since I'm sure it ended up attracting (and disappointing) the audience who liked the first film and kept people away who would have liked it but who thought it might be another graphically violent film.

    This one features Mila Kunis (Jackie of "That 70s Show") as a girl who wants to become the teaching assistant of a professor who teaches a course on crime (specifically, serial killers). The professor is played by William Shatner, so you know the tone of the film isn't going to be too heavy handed. Kunis proceeds to kill off her competitors for the job, and although the body count builds up over the course of the film about 99% of the violence is off screen. Nothing too graphic here. Kunis is actually likeable, much more so than her victims, including Shatner, who is having an affair with one of his students.

    If you approach this as a parody and not as graphic violence, you may just find it to be as fun as I did. If you're looking for more of what the original "American Psycho" offered, look elsewhere.
  • Rumor has it that Lions Gate Films took an old, un-used script and tweaked it just a little bit to make it a sequel to Universal's 2000 controversial hit "American Psycho." It's easy to see why this went straight to video. Played off as more of a dark comedy than the first one, and severely lacking any gore, nudity or intensity, this is a very weak follow-up and leaves a lot to be desired. Mila Kunis, as gorgeous as she may be, was absolutely annoying during her narrations - I couldn't help but think of "Family Guy" the whole time! I seriously almost took the tape out of the VCR several times, I just got so frustrated. This movie is very low-quality and was obviously made with a shoe-string budget -- which isn't a bad thing, as long the filmmakers know what they are doing, but director Morgan J. Freeman (no, not the guy from "Shawshank Redemption") doesn't seem to take the material seriously enough to make it work (there's a lot of interviews out there of him trashing the first film and the people who made it). Overall, it plays more like a made-for-TV movie and a very cheesy, bad attempt at dark comedy. A few twists here and there might perk your interest, but other than that, this girl is D.O.A.

  • ...they're a dime a dozen. "American Psycho 2" is a terrible desecration of Bret Easton Ellis's novel and the original film. I had my doubts about this even before it saw release, but my assumptions turned out correct--I masochistically sat through this idiotic mess, even though I felt compelled to turn it off at least once every five minutes. Humor, satire, and violence here exist on a very elementary level--the "plot" (college girl kills to become a teacher's assistant) has no link, in tone or character, to anything established in the first film or book. As a matter of fact, the budget's so obviously low that the filmmakers attempt to pass off the homicidal goings-on as flat-out 'comedy.' "American Psycho 2" is an incredible waste of celluloid, videotape, and DVD space. Rent this only if you're a vapid teenybopper who still thinks the "Scream" films are 'hip.'

  • Alex-37228 October 2004
    American Psycho II is a blatant attempt to rip off the reputation of American Psycho, which was a classic critique of the 1980s yuppie culture. It was also based on an actual book, by Brat Easton Ellis, which means that it was much better written than your average teen horror schlock.

    I feel sorry for 19 year old (at the time) Mila Kunis. I'm sure she's a nice girl and has some kind of acting future ahead of her.

    The very notion of replacing Patrick Bateman with a cutesy teenaged girl (in the movie) is in and of itself a betrayal of the hardhitting satire it was based on. Any attempt to try and connect with the original is both forced and pathetic.

    Miss this one at all cost, and if you haven't already, see the original, with Christian Bale, Willem Dafoe and Jared Leto, among many others.
  • For those that are huge fans of the Christian Bale masterpiece should whole heartily avoid this film at all costs. There is nothing, I repeat, nothing connecting these two films together outside of a title and a slight beginning reference to a man that never should have existed in the first place – one elusive Patrick Bateman. From the beginning the story makes no sense, supposed serial killer Patrick Bateman kills again, leaving a small girl to finish what he started. From that point forward, she decides to do whatever it takes to kill/capture all the serial killers of the world – thus becoming one in the process. Again, what should have just been in Bateman's mind destroys the concept that this film is balanced on – so, all we are left with are views, images, goofy music, and acting that honestly came from a Cracker Jack box. Our lead this time is Mila Kunis, of "That 70s Show fame", jumping or should I say "bubbling" right out of her character on FOX to a nearly identical character for this film. Her goal for the film, become William Shatner's teaching assistant so that she can get into Quantico and thus fulfilling her dreams to capture serial killers. What actually happens in the film is that she kills everyone in her way (everyone else is oblivious to the pile of bodies) to get that respected position. Nobody is safe, and as we prepare for the ending, a twist so predictable is thrown our way that we could care less about her, the story, or the semi-terrifying ending. Our only hope is that they decide to end the series with this film. What could the story be next? Patrick Bateman's ghost returns for more non-existent killing?

    From every angle of this film, I was disgraced. I was such an enormous fan of the original film (the insanity, the characters, the violence), that to be handed a stick of bubble gum after eating veal just felt insulting. There are those that actually enjoyed this film, which just boggles my mind. How could anyone, either a fan of the original or not, enjoy this cookie-cutter film? In the commentary, director Morgan J. Freeman even admits to being a "director-for-hire", which means the story was already in place all he needed to do was put that "direct-to-video" feel to it, and it was ready for packaging, sealing, and delivery to those unsuspecting viewers who were tied into just the title. Nothing worked in this film. The music took me away from the horrors that were happening, and made me feel that I was camping at a carnival. The selection made me want to shake my hips and chew some bubble gum (odd, this is transforming into a theme to this film). The cinematography was juvenile at best. Errors erupted with leaps and bounds, and again, during the commentary the director wasn't afraid to point them out. From these low points, the only place to go was further down with acting that somehow connected well to the carnival music. Shatner tried his best, but just couldn't pull off the womanizing teacher with connections to Quantico. The chemistry between him and the other ladies felt scripted and old. In just a short twenty days, one probably doesn't have the chance to get to know the rest of your cast, so just read your lines and pray for the best. For those wondering how Kunis did with this role, just listen to her in the commentary. Pathetic would be a good word, amateur would be another, and just to give you that third scoop, she was unbelievable at best. Freeman attempted to make her this convincing detail oriented killer, with a killer body, but the result was anything but scary – in fact – one could go so far to say that it was "killer funny". Can I say it one more time? Nothing in this film worked. I don't mean to be lacking detail, but from the initial scene it was obvious that we were on a downward path – did Morgan J. Freeman even see the original?

    I have no sympathy for this film. "American Psycho II: All American Girl" was a debauchery to the series, to the words that Bret Easton Ellis put on the page, and to cinema itself. I have no respect for those that say that this should not be paired with the original, but instead should just be watched on its own. The original "American Psycho" was well acted, nail-bitingly genre bending, and continually asks me to question the value of a male dominated workplace on Wall Street. In the original, the question became what happens to a man that has everything – in the sequel, the question transforms into "What would a girl do to get everything?" The themes are even the same. This film is a prime example of Hollywood looking to capitalize on a cult film by merely selling the title. Oh, what a horrid experiment gone wrong.

    If you wanted a cheap version of the original, I suggest this one. It contains no artistic value, no moral thought-provoking moments, and definitely nothing that could be called unique or creative. The word original was never in Morgan J. Freeman's dialog. Listen to the audio commentary if you don't believe me, these Freeman and Kunis give hope to the aspiring director (who doesn't mind selling out for a paycheck) as well as a disgraceful taste to the human race.

    This was cheap – with a capital C.

    Grade: * out of *****
  • Why did movie have to be made? "American Psycho 2" is a terrible "film". It may be one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Mila Kunis should immediately fire her agent for even informing her of this script. Most of the murders were implausible. There is no way her character could have killed all those people. I advise you to avoid this film and check out the original "American Psycho" instead.
  • I found this movie to be quite amusing, considering it is a sequel. Also considering Mila Kunis is the main character, who plays Jackie (A complete teenage rich snob) in the TV show "That 70's show". Overall I wouldn't mind watching this movie once in a while
  • Hey man i think this movie gets bad press when its actually quite a clever follow on to one of my favourite horror/thrillers. I am biased because long before the films were about i was a huge fan of Easten-Ellis' book and so probably saw the first movie through rose-tinted glasses.

    however, i found the lead in this curiously cute/deadly (did anyone else think she looked a lot like ex-Sunset Beach babe Susan Ward??) and well cast. The plot was easy enough to follow but held my attention and climaxed in a clever and twisting finale.

    Not as good as the first i have to say, but interesting, enjoyable and much better than expected it to be!
  • The makes of this film must not have needed BEE permission to make this sequel because I don't know how BEE could have let Hollywood trash the concept of his great book, American Psycho. This sequel was nothing but some B slasher movie with a bad story and really weak killings because no gore or blood is shown. It has nothing to do with the first film. To tie it in so they could use the title American Psycho, they make up the way Patrick Bateman died by saying a young girl was there and killed him as he killed her babysitter. Later on, some ridiculous story line ties the dead babysitter to one of the girl's college teachers, so we know why she is so obsessed with him. The only cool scene was when the girl gets this dead body out of her closet with flies all around after it has been there for months. Now that was gross!

    FINAL VERDICT: Bad. Don't watch it.
  • Not being a great fan of the first film, I watched this one with no expectation, and to my surprise found it wickedly good fun. Unlike the first film, this one goes for black humour all the way though, although it does have some quite gruesome moments. The very sexy Mila Kunis gives a brilliant performance as the very unbalanced Rachel Newman – the girl who will do anything to get to the top and lets nobody stand in her way!

    One black mark though, I couldn't help but feel that this film was somewhat tacked onto the original when it really didn't need to be, it could have – and maybe should have- stood on its own two feet without the `American psycho' label.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Forget everything you know about American Psycho. The only tie in is the character of Patrick Bateman, but it is enough to get the plot over from one movie to the other. I wouldn't truly call this a sequel, since its not a return of the main character reprising a role, but more like a spin off.

    Mila Kunis excellently portrays Rachael (Newman we discover isn't her real last name, but her dinner with her parents confirms that her name is Rachael), a methodical, sophisticated, and cold-blooded serial killer. She goes about her work like a kid in a candy store. Her first person narrations are amusing and twisted just like her character.

    She does make the movie work. The way she kills with a sparkle in her eye and the wrap-up in the end is awesome and entertaining. Predictable to an extent, but you really don't have the clues know about it until the very end.

    The movie, I feel, is intriguing, amusing, and good entertainment from start to finish. Its worth a look if you have the time.
  • dethimages13 August 2003
    I continue to be surprised at how poorly this film has been received. I absolutely LOVE IT! I was a big fan of the first one, and was very nervous when I heard there were plans for a sequel. It just didn't make any sense. But once I saw it I was very pleased with it... the key is to ignore the link they try to establish between the first film and this film... it's obvioulsy NOT POSSIBLE to anyone who saw and understood the first one. So just ignore it... it seems to me that someone had a great movie idea but was only able to pitch it as a sequel to something else, so they called it American Psycho II and tweaked the exposition. Taken as a movie on it's own, and NOT as a sequel, it is absolutely adorable. William Shatner still has it! (And based on most of the other performances, I'd say "it" is catching.) The movie does not take itself seriously, even for a second, and that is the key... that's what makes it great instead of stupid. It KNOWS it's ridiculous, and it is HAPPY that way. But to work, the viewers also have to not take it (or themselves) seriously... so relax and enjoy!
  • A lot of people have said they hated this movie, but I thought it was great. It had pretty much nothing to do with the original movie but it was stood out on its own. The running commentary throughout the movie by Rachel Newman was incredibly amusing. This movie didn't scare me or make me jump but instead it amused me. The cow boy chase music was funny and I loved the entire concept, it was a little far fetched but it was a good movie. I think if you're into movies like this you should go and see it, it was creepy and twisted but amusing at the same time. 10/10
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Recall American Psycho - highly original, well-acted, carefully directed, and containing some of the darkest black humour ever committed to film - so for most of us, it was laugh-out-loud funny. Whether you liked it or not, it was also gruesome.

    The "exciting and much anticipated sequel" is none of the above. Why was it never in theatres? Because it's horrible.

    Mila Kunis is college student Rachael Newman. At the very beginning of the movie we learn that Rachael killed Patrick Bateman (the original psycho) as he was killing Rachael's babysitter. WHAT?! Part of what made the original film so effective was that it left us wondering whether all of the murders had really taken place - it made us uncertain, and then it abruptly ended. Now we're told that yes, it all really happened, and the ever-meticulous Patrick

    was killed by a frightened little girl - who, by the way, completely got away with killing him. Preposterous! I wanted to turn the film off right there. Purist that I am, however, I suffered on...

    Rachael goes to college, studying criminology under a professor who for 25 years was the FBI's greatest hunter of serial killers. Apparently, when the FBI couldn't figure out who killed Patrick Bateman, their top agent left to pursue a career in teaching. Who decided to cast William Shatner for this role? He teams up with Bad Script to make this character lack any of the coldness, ruthlessness, professionalism, quirkiness, or insight that you'd expect from such a legendary FBI-type.

    Rachael wants to become the next great FBI agent so she can make a living catching serial killers. (Naturally, she has harboured an immense hatred of them ever since Patrick Bateman killed her babysitter.) In taking Captain Kirk's class this year, Rachael can apply to become his new Teaching Assistant next year - and 9 out of his 10 Teaching Assistants to date have been selected to study with the FBI.

    Naturally, Rachael proceeds to wipe out her competitors for that coveted TA position.

    You'd have to be heavily drugged to stop from being offended by how unrealistic this film is. For example, nobody questions Rachael when the boy she went out for dinner with and who later was shouting drunkenly in the hall of her dorm disappears. Nobody notices one character fall out a window. No police question Rachael, and the school is not panicked, even though one student was brutally murdered in the middle of the day in the library. A girl is missing for a few days before anyone notices she's hanging from a noose in her room (there's also, magically, no signs of struggle).

    And let's face it, Mila Kunis isn't exactly Schwarzenegger. How the heck does she kill a security guard and a janitor without getting injured herself? Speaking of which, all of the murders in the movie are essentially off-camera - you see one person's legs twitch as he is strangled, you see Rachael's arms rise up to deal the killing blow, but that's it. The only gore is on already-dead bodies: the guard has a knife through his hand. OK. But the janitor has his mop rammed through his mouth and out the back of his skull. Is this Mila Kunis or Jason Voorhees?! How strong and over-the-top is this little woman?

    Also ludicrous is the psychiatrist (Geraint Wyn Davies) who, after his first session with Rachael, immediately breaks the law by calling her professor and warning him that one of his students is a textbook psychotic. Both psychiatrist and professor proceed to do absolutely nothing about this. At the end of the film, the psychiatrist seems surprised that Rachael committed all of these murders. He then writes a bestselling book about how Rachael was such an ingenious serial killer.

    Midway through the movie there's a laughably pathetic attempt to compare Rachael to Ted Bundy, and to further suggest that she is something unique: intelligent and methodical, yet utterly psychopathic and murdering in a downward spiral of increasing rashness and depravity. Whatever - the writers of this film wouldn't know good plot and character development if The Godfather hit them over the head.

    There's also a 'twist' ending that confuses more than it explains, and scores high on the lame and unbelievable factors.

    Did I mention that Mila also teams up with Bad Script to create a character who never, not for one single fleeting instant, seems obsessive or manic enough to kill people who stand in her way? She's too casual and composed, even when the script suggests she should start to lose control.

    In closing, don't waste your time. Yes, she's crazy. Yes, she kills a bunch of people. Yes, this film manages to ruin itself, AND to try to ruin American Psycho by destroying its catch ending. Yes, it's pretty sad that they couldn't get Christian Bale to return to play Patrick in the brief scene at the beginning. No, you really won't care about the fates of any of the characters - even Rachael. No, no role in this film is sexy, or funny, or interesting, or believable, or has any good lines to deliver. Oh, and a couple of the classroom scenes were shot at the same time, then used for different days - how many times have you seen every student in a class come back the next day wearing the EXACT SAME CLOTHES?
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Just to say, I like the first one, but I think this one is better for a few reasons: 1. Mila Kunis 2. Funnier 3. I knew what was going on the whole time.

    The first one, I didn't know what the hell was happening at the I ended up watching this one and it was really good and really funny. The best part is when she strangles the guy with a condom and says, "Ribbed: for her pleasure"

    Gets me every time. Someone on this comment thing said is was ludicrous to believe that Mila Kunis could've killed these people because of her size. Well, that's stupid. If someone shoves a knife through your back, no matter what the size of the person, you're pretty much dead... So, I recommend you watch this movie.
  • I'm a sucker for sequels to films that should never have had sequels in the first place: I'm well aware that they rarely live up to the original, but I like to check them out anyway just to see quite how bad they can get. Still, I wasn't adequately prepared for the complete travesty that is American Psycho: All American Girl.

    With only the most tenuous of links to the Christian Bale movie (adapted from Bret Easton Ellis's controversial novel), American Psycho 2, from Morgan Freeman (NOT the actor), is a laugh-free, gore-free, and nudity-free piece of crap aimed at a teen audience, that never once attempts to push the boundaries, totally eschews the original's biting satire in favour of lame parody, has a dreadful soundtrack (consisting of a throughly annoying comedic score and a selection of crap pop/rock songs—as opposed to the retro-cool 80s hits of the original), and even features an ageing William Shatner (sans girdle) as the object of affection for two very hot teenage girls. Now that's pushing it!

    Gorgeous star Mila Kunis is admittedly very easy on the eye, bringing to mind a genetic splice of Katie Holmes and Angelina Jolie, but she's dreadfully miscast as the psycho (for starters, she's way too tiny) and her oh-so-devious character is thoroughly irritating, providing a continuously grating voice-over as she goes about killing the people who might prevent her from achieving her ultimate goal: to become an FBI agent so that she can catch serial killers (oh, how ironic).

    If you're a fan of the original film, either avoid this embarrassing follow-up like the plague, or be prepared for a massive disappointment.
  • American Psycho 2: All American Girl(2002) Starring: Mila Kunis, William Shatner, Geraint Wyn Davies, Robin Dunne, Lindy Booth, Kim Poirier, Kim Schraner, Kate Keleton, Charles Officer, Kay Hawtrey, Boyd Banks, Neil Crone, and Lynne Deragon Written By: Bret Easton Ellis Directed By: Morgan J. Freeman Review ANGRIER. DEADLIER. SEXIER. Hello Kiddies your pal the Crypt Critic here with the most boring slasher which happens to be a sequel to one of the best. That's very freaking sad! Rachel is a criminology student hoping to land a position as a teacher's assistant for professor Robert Starkman. She's sure this position will pave the way to an FBI career, and she's willing to do anything to obtain it -- including killing her classmates. The school psychiatrist, Dr. Daniels, becomes aware that Rachel is insane, but Rachel is skilled at her dangerous game of death and identity theft. The film feels like a TV show and a horrible one at that. Everything that went down was stupid and boring. The acting in the film is very lame from pretty much all the actors they all look very bored to be here just as we as an audience get bored from this movie. American Psycho 2 is not scary at all and is no where near as crazy or fun like it's predecessor, I'm giving American Psycho 2 a half out of five.
  • As a video film it was not really bad.After I had seen the first part,(maybe this happened in 2005,or in 2006)I did not know that film was made from a cult book,but there was a cultural TV-show in the Hungarian television,with an interview with the writer.It was hard to recognize the first Mary Harron adaptation was just interesting ,but only for first time.This second part is a comedy,with an interesting message.But as I sad this film a comedy.The twists are looks good in a not too serious film,(I mean this film is far better with this smart screenplay).Mila Kunis is very average.Don't forget this film was not a theatrical release.Maybe the character played by Mila is just OK,but theatrical releases has the same quality most of time.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    "American Psycho 2" is one of those sequels that people either love or hate, and only rarely based upon the quality of the actual film. A much-repeated phrase is "this would be a good movie with a different title". Huh? I never quite understood that way of thinking. It reminds me of the opinions I got from people who were fans of the rock band the Doors. After the singer Jim Morrison died the Doors continued for two more albums that hardly anyone wants to listen to. Why? "the Doors without Morrison? forget it". As if the only records in the universe worth listening to are ones with that particular singer. Once I made that point the illogic of their argument was revealed and they listened to the two albums and really liked them. Good music is good music. Same here. This movie wouldn't be any better or worse with a different title. I feel "American Psycho 2" (not all prints carry the subtitle "All American Girl") is almost the equal of it's predecessor. And not only for actually confirming that Bateman did indeed kill at least *some* people, but for the film's point of view. While the first movie was a stunning and biting satire of self-obsessed yuppies, "2" is aiming at the college crowd, the vapid kids with a frightening sense of entitlement and sum-zero convictions. The psycho Rachel here is somehow even more bizarrely sympathetic than Patrick, to a point, even with there being no true ambiguity as to the sequence of events. After the murder of a billionaire's son we know it's Rachel behind the killing, yet it doesn't take away from the narrative. Two unexpected and satisfying twists aside, there's no mystery here; the brilliance is entirely in it's own universe and following it's own catharsis. To condemn "American Psycho 2" for it's somewhat stilted commercial construction and gaps in logic is missing the point entirely. This is a great film. It's not pretentious in presenting itself as a sequel because it really does fit- Bateman would be proud. Or not. If the idea of a sequel nags at you, call it something else. If the revelation that Bateman was a serial killer is worrisome, then I guess the premise of "American Psycho 2" is just insurmountable. Skip it. But you're missing out on a terrific film.
  • Wizard-818 June 2002
    I confess I have not seen (yet) the first AMERICAN PSYCHO. But it *must* be better than this piece of garbage! As the title girl, Mila Kunis was unbelievably annoying, having a grating tone in her voice. Her bad dialogue, which included a lot of awful Freddy Krueger-like wisecracks and remarks, was equally annoying. The rest of the screenplay is ridiculous - though there are one or two twists, it is incredible that Kunis' character could get away with what she was doing for so long. The psychiatrist character in the end barely has any use at all. As well, it's easy to predict the ending.

    Anything positive to say? Well, Shatner is bad, as expected, but at least his hammy performance delivers some welcome unintended laughs. And for what was a low budget, the movie does look fairly slick. And... uh... that's all I can think of. Speaking of "uh", those who watch the DVD edition of this movie will be infuriated by director Freeman's commentary, filled with too many utterances of "uhhhh....." (which make him sound like a complete idiot), as well as the fact that he can't seem to say ANYTHING of interest about the making of the movie, preferring instead to describe what's happening onscreen at the time!
  • This movie is a teen slasher flick along the lines of "Scream" and "I Know What You Did Last Summer". It bears no resemblance to Mary Harron's dramatic 2000 film. Having (through some strange, unexplained sequence of events) killed Patrick Bateman from the original film, a teenage girl (Mila Kunis) makes it her life's ambition to track serial killers and bring them to justice. Then she arrives at college and starts to kill fellow students in an attempt to eliminate her competition and land a top job with the FBI. The killing becomes increasingly frantic and comic as the film progresses. Although the plot is shallow and ridiculous, the film is amusing in parts with some witty one-liners and a fair performance from Geraint Wyn Davies as the killer's psychiatrist.

    One to watch on TV to pass the time, but not worth paying to see.
  • Voltzen4 February 2009
    I don't give a damn what's been said about this movie, I like it. The main character is likable, cute, witty, self confident and charismatic. I'm still watching it now and to be honest I didn't care much for the original American Psycho (albeit it's been a few years since I've seen it) but I just saw this on demand, by chance, and figured "what the hell, let's give it a shot." 23 minutes into the film and I'm hooked. This girl reminds me of ME. Some differences, yes, but many similarities. I've always wanted to be a profiler, and fascinated with serial killers as well. Humanity is dual is it not? Disregard what's been said about this film- watch it yourself and make up your own mind. In my own humble opinion, this one is golden.

  • Warning: Spoilers
    I must admit I had heard bad things about this movie. Straight to video, no Christian Bale, no involvement from the original film's creators and most importantly it's not based on any of Bret Easton Ellis' other works. Give it a chance I said to myself and my god, was I surprised.

    First of all the movie starts with Patrick Bateman (face unseen) doing what he does best but is then finished off by a little girl. Years later that little girl is at college studying serial killers.

    At this point, I was worried, signs were showing it was going to be a Urban Legends/Scream rip off. College scenes, dudes hanging out etc. All the usual cliches, but I was wrong.

    The cast features the great William Shatner playing a serial killer expert in the way only William Shatner knows how. Geraint Wyn Davies plays a confused shrink and the real find is Mila Kunis who plays Rachael, the new American Psycho.

    Kunis is not only enjoying her role with relish, but manages to be incredibly sexy as well. So the part's not Shakespeare, but she chomps up the dialogue and spits it out like a seasoned pro. She is definately a young actress to watch. The scene where is confronts Shaner is already in my opinion a real classic. Funny in a kind of twisted way and that dress she's wearing - WOW!!

    If there is a downside, it's not quite as violent as the original as most of the killings are seen off screen and also it's quite short at only 85 minutes. However, it's an enjoyable 85 minutes and I look forward to a part 3. ******SPOILER ALERT****** The ending leaves it right open for a sequel.

    All in all, give it a go. I bought it and don't regret it at all.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Apart from a fast flying-by image of and reference to Bateman, this film has nothing to do with the film whose title it is borrowing. It is just what some call a slasher, others would call a thriller. But what is it really? First it is a phenomenal picture of the American society at the end of the 20th century and beginning of the 21st century. A society that considers achieving an aim, a purpose as being the most important fact in anyone's own life. It is the cult of the winner as opposed to the curse of the loser. If you don't want to be a loser, you have to be a winner, at all cost. This is an illusion if we don't understand that winning or losing has to be a social fact: one can only win within the own winning of his full society. One cannot be a winner if one is surrounded with losers. And one cannot be a winner if one is surrounded with winners, lest that first one will have to eliminate all the other potential winners. That is schizophrenia based on a megalomaniac paranoid psychosis. The second element we learn is that a woman serial killer is possible, though we must admit they are rare, though we do not know why. The third element we learn is that the best serial killer is someone who is absolutely unknown because that serial killer assumed the identity of someone else and eliminated that someone else. Hence the serial killer is past history, and yet alive and kicking somewhere in New York or Washington. The trickiest element of this film is that this insane killer only aimed at being accepted in the FBI Academy in Quantico and has actually been selected and is bound to be an FBI serial killer hunter. But this does not qualify this film as a sequence in any way of "American Psycho". One thing is missing: the particular obsession Bateman had about male fashion and beauty products, financial business and amplified music. The second thing that is missing is the ambiguity of the book and the ambiguity of the unrated version of the film as for knowing if this serial killing is only a fantasized nightmare or a real thing, if Bateman is a real serial killer or just a mental case of a serial killer. But one thing is identical: the "killer" is un-prosecutable, will always be unknown and untouchable, because society has classified the murders with some reassuring explanation: the killer herself is dead. So after all this is a good entertaining film though it lacks some depth.

    Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines
An error has occured. Please try again.