Not one likeable character and no story!

Like Gossip Girl

I read the book last week, haven't seen the movie. Let me tell you I read that book, hoping there would be some character development or a plot, and there wasn't. It was a complete waste of my time, absolutely nothing came of it. Each chapter focuses on a different character, and it seemed like something would happen with Graham because so many characters were linked to him, but nada. Also there was a random ass vampire at the end of the book - not cool. I get the commentary, but jeez. Really?

The fact you're complaining about the film having "no likable character and no story" is quite ironic. Have you never seen "American Psycho" and "Rules of Attraction"? Even more so, have you not even read anything by Ellis?

If not, let me welcome you to the wonderful world of Bret Easton Ellis. When it comes to Ellis' work, there is no story or set defined plot and there are no likable characters. I'll use the Batemans from both "The Rules of Attraction" and "American Psycho" as a clear cut example. For "American Psycho" (and it's film), Patrick Bateman is a psychopath. He has no redeeming features about him and his story has, as he puts it in the novel, no exit. He is not likable, but we follow along with him because he and the people around him are all self-absorbed and are not likable, which means we have no one else we could possibly connect to.

His brother, Sean (from "The Rules of Attraction") is the same, as well as the students of Camden College. Sean is just as bad. He doesn't care about who he hurts, just what he wants. And none of the students actually care about learning, are always either stoned or having sex.

And in both sets of groups in both novels (and even the film adaptations), they are all "pathetic morons with too much money and not enough brains." Their stories don't exist, the novels (and subsequent films) have no defined plot structure. They are all just "a day in the life during the 1980s" pieces (for the novels, as the film adaptation of "The Rules of Attractions" was set in a modern day timeframe, though still retains the novel's events and some of the characters).

So, long story short, don't complain about the film having no likable characters and no story, because it's only following what Bret Easton Ellis written in the short stories. In the world of Bret Easton Ellis, there is no story, only a world without any compasses, both in moral or life.

But this one's eating my popcorn!

except for Mickey ROurke every other character sucked crap!

Metal forever.............

There was something there, but the performances were just half hearted, and there's nothing that could've been done when the studio cuts the film by a good hour and a half.

Agree with those saying Renfro's character had redeeming qualities. Standing up to the human traffic guy (let alone Rourke's character) that came to the house to "collect", I don't care what anyone says, that took balls. I'd be pissing myself for sure. And his scene in the hotel lobby with Graham, where he's so desperate for human connection - good stuff.

The other characters I would agree, not much to redeem them. I guess that's to be expected with Ellis. Of his work, I've only read American Psycho, but from the film adaptations I've seen, American Psycho was great (didn't need to like the characters to appreciate the satire, actually it helped that they pissed me off so much with their smugness and inhumanity lol), and this and Less than Zero were disappointments.


"I'm a firm believer in the philosophy of a ruling class. Especially since I rule."

I would agree with what another poster ... what about Tim? With such a clueless prick of a dad, I had plenty of sympathy for him.

Some fellows get credit for being conservative when they are only stupid.
- Kin Hubbard

[deleted]