Reviews & Ratings for
American Psycho II: All American Girl (V) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 22:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

217 reviews in total

---

57 out of 74 people found the following review useful:
Very Entertaining Parody of Slasher Films, 10 March 2003

Author: theslick1 from So Cal, USA

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.

---

60 out of 80 people found the following review useful:
How Do Producers Get Away With This ?, 22 April 2005

Author: Theo Robertson from Isle Of Bute, Scotland

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

---

33 out of 52 people found the following review useful:
So bad it's...well, it's bad., 22 April 2004
Author: Andy (Incubus_Reborn) from Maine

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.

2/10

---

25 out of 40 people found the following review useful:
Skip, 28 October 2004
Author: Alex-372 from The Hague, The Netherlands

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.

---

11 out of 14 people found the following review useful:
Entertaining black comedy, 7 August 2002

Author: Robert Clarke from Wrexham, North Wales

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.

---

15 out of 22 people found the following review useful:
I actually really like this!!!, 3 November 2003

Author: kiddyfan from Keele University, Staffs

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!

---

16 out of 24 people found the following review useful:
Killer Cute!, 13 August 2003

Author: dethimages from Pennsylvania

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!

---

11 out of 15 people found the following review useful:
Terrific sequel-continuation-..., 16 May 2008

Author: sean4554

*** This review may contain 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.

---

35 out of 63 people found the following review useful:
terrible sequels like this aren't "one in a million"..., 22 January 2003

Author: Jonny_Numb from Hellfudge, Pennsylvania

...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.'

Zero/10

---

9 out of 12 people found the following review useful:
Better than the first..., 11 October 2008

Author: austina123 from United States

*** This review may contain 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 end...so 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.

---

---

Page 1 of 22:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another review

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Plot synopsis	Ratings
Newsgroup reviews	External reviews	Parents Guide
Plot keywords	Main details	Your user reviews
Your vote history