|Page 1 of 23:||          |
|Index||223 reviews in total|
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
character is supposedly a survivor of Patrick Bateman, this could be a
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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 *****
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.
*** This review may contain 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?
|Page 1 of 23:||          |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Newsgroup reviews||External reviews||Parents Guide|
|Plot keywords||Main details||Your user reviews|
|Your vote history|