Earlier today
news broke that Lionsgate has hired Nobel Jones, a second unit director on part of David Fincher's
The Social Network, to write (and possibly direct) a remake of
American Psycho.
The big question is why?
Mary Harron's adaptation of the Bret Easton Ellis novel of the same name, released in 2000 somewhat famously with an NC-17 rating, is respected but not exactly acclaimed. The original
American Psycho is mostly known to the masses for star Christian Bale's excellent performance as the psychotic yuppie (with a love for Huey Lewis and the News) Patrick Bateman.
And, perhaps even still more specifically, it's known for a few of his choice lines--like, "I have to return some video tapes," which has entered the geek lexicon through the
urban dictionary.
Harron's film is passably known, popular largely only in cult circles, and made a very modest $34 million worldwide, off of an $8 million budget. A success, but not a big one.
Also consider that Lionsgate, who merely owns the rights in the United States, saw only a fraction of that profit, so while their remake might bring them a larger share, it's not like they made a truckload on the original either (a part of the reason for this remake?). The film received mixed-to-positive reviews from critics upon release--it has a 67 percent "Fresh" rating on RottenTomatoes.com (and since when has the general public cared about reviews, anyway? But I digress...).
But reviews notwithstanding,
American Psycho isn't, and wasn't, some widely seen, mega-blockbuster. And it isn't ripe for a retelling either. Harron's film is well written, directed and acted (it is still, I think, my favorite performance from Bale and that's saying something considering his filmography).
When a
psuedo-sequel, starring Mina Kunis and William Shatner, was quickly given the green light, it was released direct-to-video and... well, it went direct to video. (The sequel has an abysmal 11 percent on the Tomatometer, by the way.) Lionsgate has already tried to make lighting strike twice. I didn't. Do we really need to try a third time?
Yeah, Lionsgate brass can't possibly think this will make money. Oh, but they do. And, oh, but it probably will on name recognition alone (which is, I assure you dear reader, the sole reason plans for this "remake" exist). But then, the original's fans--me, and others--are already marking our calendars to
not see the remake when it comes to theaters. So, maybe not?
The more I read about it today, the more I'm sure: the new
American Psycho is the worst kind of remake. Because it's pointless. And proof-positive that Hollywood is broken. They'd rather throw money--even a little money, as this remake is being touted as micro-budget; what that means is anyone's guess--at something people will recognize on the theater marquee than finance an original film.
But it's been known that the studios are largely allergic to originality since, really, the beginning of time (in the context of movies anyway). John Huston's seminal film noir
The Maltese Falcon (1941) was a remake, as was, wouldn't-ya-know it,
The Wizard of Oz (1939), which was first adapted to film in 1910 and even made into a movie in
1914 by original author L. Frank Baum.
But Jones' new
American Psycho is a new low. Especially so because it appears that his script resets the events to
MODERN DAY.
Again, I ask why?
Reportedly, the filmmakers want to explore Bateman and his actions in the context of a post-9/11 New York City... or some shit. (Also, because, I guess no one likes the 80s anymore? When did that happen?)
But if rumors of the "update" are true, then the remake kinda misses an essential point of the novel and original movie, doesn't it? Ellis' book and Harron's film are both satirical critiques of the 80s--an era of excess and ridiculousness. Part of the "charm"--for lack of a better word--of the original film is the cynical wall street aesthetic and Bale, as Bateman, vomiting up chunks of the decade's most ironic and head-scratchingly popular staples of pop culture.
Now, could the new
American Psycho actually end up being good?
I suppose so.
I like both
Scarface (1932) and
Scarface (1981) just fine. A three
Thing's stand on their own. Howard Hawk's
The Thing From Another World (1951) is a slice of beautiful 50s B-movie cheese. Carpenter's
The Thing (1981) is a near masterpiece of horror. And the newest, decent-but-forgettable prequel-sequel-reboot-remake-whatever
The Thing (2011) somehow wasn't awful. Sure, one
True Grit--the more faithful-to-the-source, Coen Brothers directed one--was better than the other, but both are good movies, whether Wayne or Bridges was Rooster Cogburn.
Again, I suppose this remake may not be horrible. It may also not be as good as the original, but there's a chance that Nobel Jones'
American Psycho will be more like
The Magnificent Seven (1960) and hopefully a lot less like Gus Van Sant's pointless
Psycho (1998). Truthfully, anything is possible. It depends on the cast, the tone of the script, the abilities of the director...
But, seriously, the original came out 11 years ago. And news of this remake makes me want to drop a chainsaw down a flight of stairs.
