This is a personal-favorite, though I wonder how-much of it is really horror. It certainly has elements-of-horror, but I see it as more of a personal-allegory, and a social-one that would do Herman Melville proud. OK, it is horror! Social-horror: these are the people in-charge of our world! For those familiar-with the novel, this is a more toned-down affair by Mrs. Harron, a superb-director, who sticks-to the social-themes and implications of the story. There are some scenes of gore, but they are significantly toned-down and minimized, and I think the move was a wise-one. Sometimes, gore detracts too-much from the narrative and the themes of a film, but not here. Reagan America seems pretty innocent to us nowadays, but it was rife with greed and cronyism, and even some of the disastrous military-adventurism we are seeing today (Grenada, 1983, the first-time the press was barred-from an invasion). Sadly, the militarist-culture of Reagan has continued. The seeds of present-day scandals and corruption were being planted during the 1980s.The poor were neglected (and still are), and the mentally-ill were "deinstitutionalized", while military-spending blossomed, and there were financial-scandals-galore--then finally, Iran-Contra and a stock market crash. In the cities, a bull-market of speculation had exploded, and there was a materialist obsession with "luxury-items", high-priced art, and ridiculous cuisine and fashion-trends that would make a Flapper blush-with-shame. 1980s-fashion is best summed-up as: big-shoulders, no-compassion. Clothing was absolutely ugly, trashy and vulgar, which reflected the times, a Hobbesian-hell of winner-take-all. This, then, is the world of the character Patrick Bateman. People didn't want to know, hear, or talk-about social-problems in the 1980s, which has taken a 180-degree-turn nowadays, a crucial-difference. This--at-least--has changed. The laws of physics provided the soil. But, there is also a touch of hilarity in Bateman's monologues on the virtues of Phil Collins. The novel spends an entire-chapter on his ridiculous-obsessions with the horrible pop music of the time. It's accurate, too, I knew a number of half-dead lumps who loved that garbage.
What Harron argues, finally, is that Patrick Bateman is unremarkable as a serial-killer within-the-context of the immorality he is surrounded-by. His exact-job is murky, and the firm he works-for is only referred to as "Pierce & Pierce" in the film. It also appears he is the benefactor of nepotism from his father, and appears to be creating nothing. What should be noted is that the director's husband produced corporate videos for "Merrill-Lynch, Pierce & Pierce" (which she states on both DVDs), so there is more-familiarity between Ellis's book than we would expect. Indeed, I am friendly-with people who work-at "Merrill-Lynch...", who confirm that the corporate-culture depicted in the film is accurate--so accurate, when the film came-out, their colleagues opined that they "could relate to Patrick Bateman". Make of that what-you-will. So, it isn't a stretch to see the similarities in how corporations devalue human-life with that of a serial-killer. There are similarities in-psychology here, such as viewing people as nothing-more than objects (which Bateman does on numerous-occasions, including watching porn) to be used as one wishes. Maybe this is the heart of horror in "American Psycho", both the novel and the film. The best-scene is the where he murders the Black homeless-man, a short-walk to what the suits were doing from their desks to the poor, both then-and-now.
Ellis's novel came out of his being immersed in this New York-environment (Harron lived there at the time too), and he spent more time than he cared-for with people who shared the attitudes of the Bateman character. He saw murder as a short-step from the amorality and immorality of the Wall Street playboys, and Patrick Bateman can be viewed as a composite and abstraction of these types. By 1987, the stock-market crashed--it was the other Black Friday. Without New Deal controls and protections, we would likely have had another Great Depression (wait, the other-one is coming). 1987 was also the year that Iran-Contra was revealed, and the 1980s-dream which was a nightmare for many. The Reagan-80s were over. And yet, it all continues today in-spades: the corruption, the murder, the lies, and the amorality of those who feed on us. It is significant that the film ends in 1987, and that Bateman has "learned nothing". Horror-indeed.
NEW YAWK CITY-He was the 'Walrus', you know the rest. Known for...well, not-much. He was appointed by President Bush during a recess (the kids were playing, no-more 'My Pet Goat' for em') in Congress. Everyone knew he was never going to win Senate confirmation, so he was fired. Maybe he'll leak some documents soon, too! Bolton is a stellar-example of how the Democrats have been able to block more of the Bush agenda than they've been letting-on. His nomination has 'languished' for a year in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. So why wasn't this done with the Patriot Act? Why wasn't this done with Bush's tax-cuts? Sure, in some of those committees, it wasn't possible. Maybe Bolton has incriminating-photos of Bush from Vegas in 1984, but when they considered keeping-him-on in 'another post', it just got too-weird.
traces of polonium-210. It appears he has some answering to do. At the same-time, an imprisoned ex-FSB spy in Yekaterinburg is saying he told Litvinenko a government 'death squad' was formed within the agency to kill him and other opponents of the Putin regime. Scaramella: who is this man? It seems some in Italy are being secretive about his 'credentials' as an--GAG!--academic. I think his cover has been blown, and he probably has ties to Italian & Russian intelligence reaching-back into the Cold War years. Deep cover means just-that. It's strange that Il Professore is also an investigating Magistrate outside of Naples. He wears too-many hats.
Meanwhile, nobody has come up with any valid-reasons or evidence to support that Litvinenko's employer, Russian Oligarch Boris Berezovsky, is behind any of this. None of this matters in-light of the Dr.'s contamination, except this: facing his own potential-death, he's likely to start talking about everything he knows. He'd better make-it-quick and public. It all reminds one of the intrigues in London and Russia before, during and after the Revolutions of 1917-1918. Master spy Sidney Reilly was a free-agent, and an exemplar of how an operative can be pulled in every-direction (even against-their-will). 'Reilly' was really a Russian-Jew named Rosenblum from the underworld of Odessa, and his entry into Great Britain was through the emigre community of London. Just like one Alexander Litvinenko. 




"The only one who can dismiss and impose governors is God." --Gov. Ulises Ruiz, November 2006
e, and it's this movie! Astonishingly, Universal distributed this little indie, but has given it virtually no publicity whatsoever. That must have been the trade-off, because it's a pretty uncompromising story that could be compared-to Richard Linklater's Fast Food Nation. Directed by Bob Odenkirk (Mr. Show, SNL-writer during the Phil Hartman era, Ben Stiller Show, Conan O'Brien), it's an interesting-take on our corrections system, and it's loosely-based on a non-fiction book called 'You Are Going to Prison', by a former inmate named Jim Hogshire. Much of his humor is intact in the film, but writers Ben Garant and Thomas Lennon have taken it into the realm of fiction/non-fiction . The book was literally just a 'how-to' guide to survival in prison, so you know this isn't going to be a flattering-portrayal of it. Most Americans know full-well their prison system is corrupt, and basically dysfunctional, but our culture has a lust for punishment at its core. Don't believe me? Let's go to prison, and find-out!

WASHINGTON--I heartily-agree with Rep. Rangel, and while we're going to do this, let's hammer-shut all the deferrments. This is something I am certain Rangel wants, too. Yes, I'm against-the-war, and I believe it's a good-idea. Americans--especially the youngest of young-adults--will no-longer be able to ignore a war like Iraq again, there will be no room for apathy. Especially when the children of the middle class and the wealthy start getting-killed in large-numbers. But this is key to readoption, making it a shared-responsibility in a time of war. It's a hard argument to disagree-with, as an all-volunteer military has still been disproportionately-populated by the poor since the removal of the draft in 1973 (by the GOP). Rangel's primary-aim is to change this fact. Yes, even white trailer-trash. But he really does have an overarching-goal in bring the draft back, and that's to damage the war machine's ability to expolit the poor. 