Warning may contain spoilers<br /><br />Since this didn't make theatres (thank God) every DVD and VHS with this movie on it deserves to be axed, chainsawed, stabbed, nailgunned and everything that Patrick Bateman did to his victims in the movie and book. Whereas the original had originality, humour, sharp wit, and good script writing, great direction and acting talent, this movie lacks all of them. Harron, Turner, Bale, Sevigny, Dafoe and others made a great movie. Of which both the making and finished product was put through the ringer with locations withdrawn at the last minute, shooting having to keep a low profile, and banning attempts. The result was a work of art. But this film undoes all the work of the original.<br /><br />The acting is wooden, characters are played lamely, and lack any emotion, charisma or personality. Wit is non-existent, and the attempts at humour are so lame that if I were to laugh I would laugh at the patheticness of it all. The music is awful and the voice over (unlike in the true American Psycho) is annoying. And while there seems to be an attempt at sending up campus life and politics, it is not a redeeming factor at all and the writers appear to give up on it after not too long.<br /><br />It is simply a teen slasher movie that has (for reasons unknown) added the name American Psycho to itself, and brought in the Patrick Bateman angle. It is like this scenario; Artist A does a painting, Artist B does their own painting, but then places scenes and subjects from the work of Artist A. I am not sure how long this sequel was in planning or when it was decided, but thats the situation as I see it. All that differntiates from teen slashers is that we know who is doing the killings, but that was taken out of the "first". So theres no originality there.<br /><br />What is really bad about this film is that it tells you that Bateman actually did the killings in the true American Psycho. The only person who has the right to say whether Patrick really did commit the murders or not is Ellis. He was the author of the original American Psycho story, therefore only he should decide. I read that Ellis in fact, stated that in the novel, all that actually ever happened was that Bateman might have horrible thoughts of you and draw horrible pictures as well. That the killings didn't really take place was also conveyed (as I saw it) in the original. So don't all we who executed the sequel feel silly now? And even though I have called this a sequel (for ease of writing) I do not recognise it as such. As far as I am concerned we left the world of Bateman in the novel when the final page was turned (even though I never read it properly), and in the film when the end credits began rolling. Until Ellis writes a continuation of American psycho, to me Bateman is alive and kicking.<br /><br />See only if you're absoloutely desparate or want to write a critical review of a movie. Otherwise avoid at all costs.<br /><br />