Book Versus Movie

In the film world, it is common knowledge that the book is, like, ALWAYS better than the movie....
Take any Hollywood adaptation of a successful novel -- the film version will universally leave so much out that fans of the source material will cringe, roll their eyes, and even call for blood upon seeing it. You name the title, and the film adaptation will be a disappointment compared to the book.

(The movie version of this one STILL drives me friggin' crazy.)

Admittedly, it all makes sense, of course -- your average decent novel will have, like, 500 pages, 40,000 characters, and (oh, I dunno) 91514143154545746 words, so....mmmyeah, a 90 minute motion picture adaptation just HAS to leave some stuff out. It has no choice; things must be cut and plot points streamlined in order to get that bad boy to the big screen in anything approaching a reasonable length of time. I think we all understand that....

But, what about the RARE cases in which the movie is actually BETTER THAN THE BOOK???

Believe me, it DOES occasionally happen, and I can think of three examples off the top of my head right now. First is The English Patient (1996); second is Silk (2007); and THIRD is the flick I wish to specifically examine today: American Psycho (2000).


Now, I reviewed American Psycho the film last year, not even knowing at the time that it was based off a novel, and it totally blew my mind. Although my official analysis of the picture back then was a bit rushed, I still stand behind it, and regard this 2000 release as a masterpiece.

See, bottom line is that American Psycho rules. GOT IT???


Since that initial screening, I've literally watched the film AT LEAST 100 times (yeah, maybe not so healthy, I know), and I can't stop wrapping my diseased little mind around its intricacies. So much to say here; so many subtleties....American Psycho is simply a PERFECT motion picture, friends. I am certain of that.

Therefore, I think it's only natural that I felt compelled to check out the novel upon which it was based. This sucker was written by Brad Easton Ellis, and published back in 1991. Apparently, it generated some controversy at the time, due to the depictions of extreme violence against women that it contains (which, by the way, failed to impress me, but we'll get to that later). Heck, even feminist icon Gloria Steinem campaigned against the book, attempting unsuccessfully to prevent its release.

(FUN FACT: Christian Bale, who eventually starred in the film adaptation of American Psycho, is, ironically, the god son OF Gloria Steinem. Seriously.)

ANYway, as indicated, American Psycho the book was a disappointment for me. First of all, it's grossly different from the movie adaptation in that THE FILM is far more humorous, concise, and comprehensible. I mean, REALLY -- I'm not sure I would have even understood much of the action in American Psycho the novel if I hadn't been provided with some kind of objective framework by the motion picture to begin with. It's just all so rambling -- flow of consciousness kind of stuff that drops important information matter-of-factly, while dwelling on the sorts of trivial crap that automatically causes me to skip entire pages. Had I not seen the movie first, I suspect that American Psycho the novel would have left me entirely clueless as to what was going on at certain points, simply because I lacked the ability to pay attention to the paragraphs upon paragraphs of yammering about workout regimens and bottled water and silk neckties and candy corn and good veal and my ass, and yada yada yada...courtesy of our narrator....

What I'm saying is that the ridiculous amount of banal DETAIL provided in the novel renders it almost unreadable. I mean, in American Psycho THE MOVIE, our (anti)hero Pat Bateman will occasionally go off on tangents about things like fashion and yuppy restaurants, etc.; but IN THE BOOK, these diatribes DRAG ON AND ON FOR PAGES AND PAGES, and I absolutely could not handle them. Look, just one paragraph about Armani suits every couple of chapters might be acceptable and get its point across; but in this particular book, we're given such nonsense EVERY OTHER FRIGGIN' PAGE!

It drove me nuts.


American Psycho the novel is a giant mess, with a solid story buried somewhere at its core, and I applaud the film version's director, Mary Harron, for turning this jumbled heap into a compelling and downright BRILLIANT production. Mary, you deserve to rank right up there with Spielberg and Scorsese as the greatest filmmakers in Hollywood today. I couldn't possibly tip my hat to you enough for transforming an almost unbearable novel into a motion picture that inspired, intrigued, and enthralled me dozens of times.

I barely managed to finish American Psycho the book. Even the MURDER bits were inserted in a totally random fashion, with little framing to make them stand out as important to the point. Who knows how many people Pat Bateman kills in the novel? -- The dang thing slips these details in so haphazardly amidst other BS that they're easy to miss.

The FILM, however...well, I don't need to tell you folks again how much I enjoy it....


So, AGAIN -- Mary Harron, you rock. You took source material that pretty much made no sense at all, cut to its heart, made it funny and compelling, and unleashed upon the world a motion picture that would rank as a classic for millions upon millions. YOU, ma'am, are a genius who ranks among the very few filmmakers to produce a movie adaptation that is actually BETTER than than the book upon which it is based.

Good show!

AND, TO DRIVE THE POINT HOME ON THIS, HERE'S A RE-POST OF MY ORIGINAL REVIEW OF AMERICAN PSYCHO THE FILM (written quite drunkenly on the night of February 16th, 2010):


American Psycho (2000)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0144084/



Netflix description:
With a chiseled chin and an iron physique, Patrick Bateman's looks make him the ideal yuppie -- and the ideal serial killer. That's the joke behind American Psycho, which follows a killer at large during the 1980s junk-bond boom. Bateman (Christian Bale) takes pathological pride in everything from his business card to his Huey Lewis CD collection, all the while plotting his next victim's vivisection

Since everyone's already seen it, I won't waste your time with an in-depth review, but I WILL say that American Psycho is one of the most awesome movies ever. Hilarious and disturbing, this film features what is one of Christian Bale's best performances (really second only to The Machinist) as yuppie Patrick Bateman. He's an ultra-cool Wall Street investor business guy with one problem: he has a lust for blood...lots of it.

Patrick murderizes several people in a typically cold businessman way -- very efficient, very calm. Eventually, his murder spree gets a little out of hand. CAN Patrick stop this madness? WILL Patrick be caught by the nosy detective investigating the disappearance of one of his associates?? IS any of this actually happening???

That last question is really the only original thing I have to add to the pubic discourse about American Psycho. Is it possible that the whole story was really just in our (anti-) hero's head? I figure that's one of two possible explanations for what happens in the end. Either A, Patrick is fantasizing all of this; or B, the world of 1980s business yuppies was so impersonal that no one could tell each other apart (this would validate my own plan for infiltrating the world of high finance). Any thoughts?


Either way, American Psycho blew my friggin' mind, and I must admit that I'm ashamed for having not seen it until this week. Anyone else in that same boat is urged to give this bad boy a rental (or, really, a straight-up purchase) right away.

5 out of 5.

--SO, there, friends....

My previously posted review still stands. In fact, I'd actually like to give American Psycho an even HIGHER rating than 5 out of 5, if I were to review it again. This film has grown on me more and more with each obsessive viewing since that fateful day in February of 2010; I now consider it one of the best motion pictures ever made. Brilliant on every level, and worthy of infinite screenings, I place American Psycho among my top five favorite films of all-time.

So, the point is that it is one of the very few movie adaptations of a book that surpasses its source material in quality. Anyone else have any similar suggestions? Anyone wanna argue with me here??? I'd love some feedback.....


But, HEY -- why not make this post a two-fer, with a yet another review of a different murder flick??? Guess what -- this one occupies the opposite end of the quality spectrum as American Psycho.

So, ARE YOU READY?!?

--Well, too bad, cuz here it comes, anyway....

Santa's Slay (2005)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0393685/



Netflix description:
Jolly old Saint Nick (Bill Goldberg) isn't making a gift list this year -- he's making a hit list, checking it twice and unleashing his inner demon for an unforgettably terrifying Christmas. A bet that Santa lost to an angel 1,000 years ago has expired, and now he's hell-bent on spreading some holiday fear. As the big day approaches, only young Nicholas Yuleson (Douglas Smith) and his grandfather (Robert Culp) can stop him.


All right -- real quick, friends.....

This movie SHOULD have been about one million times better. I mean, what a boring, stupid, waste of time.

C'mon -- Santa goes nuts and kills people? --In terms of premise, that's HILARIOUS! WHY, oh why, didn't this movie work out???

I dunno. I guess it's the silly B-list celebrity cameos that somehow take the magic out of this whole experience within the first ten minutes, believe it or not. Let's see -- we've got Fran Drescher, Chris Kattan, and Rebecca Gayheart, all showing up in the opening scene, for God's sake. Seeing that just KILLED my enthusiasm, and made me suspect that Santa's Slay was going to be a watered down, slap-sticky and tongue-in-cheek PARODY of campy filmmaking, instead of the balls-to-the-wall, unabashed gorefest for which I'd been hoping. And I was right.

This film SHOULD have been about Santa Claus going absolutely crazy and murderizing tons of people in horrifying ways. Instead, it's a stupid, supernatural-oriented kind of comedic butt-slapper.

Fiddlesticks, I say!

(And, wasn't this pun-inspired title already pitched in Ernest Saves Christmas???)

Yeah, Santa's Slay was just plain boring. Instead of providing us with blood-splattering and reindeer torture, it gives us a dumb story about Santa trying to be evil after finally welching on a bet he'd lost to Satan (or something), like, a thousand years earlier. It's more comedy than anything else, and I was thoroughly disappointed.

No depravity to speak of; little bloodshed; and few genuine laughs. Santa's Slay is a massive missed opportunity. Bill Goldberg, as our title character, is semi-inspired at times (kinda reminded me of Geoffery Rush); but his efforts don't come even remotely close to making this a worthwhile experience. In the end, Santa's Slay is just ultra low-level slapstick, and not worthy of so much as a passing glance. Sorry....

If you wanna see a good Christmas, Santa-oriented murder movie, then I suggest Silent Night, Deadly Night. As for THIS one, however, I say BAH HUMBUG!

1 out of 5.

b.