/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.7267691]

Was it better than the movie?

[Anonymous No.7267712]

>>7267691
better at what tbh fam?

[Anonymous No.7267715]

>>7267712
Being good

[Anonymous No.7267718]

>>7267715
at what, lid?

[Anonymous No.7267720]

both are fedora-tier edgecore

[Anonymous No.7267727]

Yes by a landslide tho Christian bales performance makes the movie worth a watch. And I envisioned CB while reading the book

[Anonymous No.7267732]

>>7267691
Depends, the movie is good because it is basically a really entertaining dark and campy comedy... I haven't read the book, but I can't imagine working well in a novel.
B movies can be really good, but usually hoaky and corny novels don't work well at all.

[Anonymous No.7267737]

Movie was better only because they shortened the endless monologues about fashion and skincare down to a minimum.

[Anonymous No.7267771]

>>7267737
so the book is better....

[Anonymous No.7268742]

I can't even watch the Movie anymore. It's shit
And I think Bale wasn't up to par, considering - the movie Bateman is just different

>>7267732
Why are you talking

[Anonymous No.7268763]

>>7267691
No. The movie was significantly better due to not being full of nonstopp product namedropping and all the other terrible things about Bret's godawful prose.

[Anonymous No.7268781]

>>7268763
>full of nonstopp product namedropping
That shit was funny most of the time, anyhow you just skim those parts if you dont like it.
The dialog pateman had with the other characters is where the real gold was at.

[Anonymous No.7268799]

>>7267737
>>7268763
>not getting the point of the book

>>7267691
Really hard to compare, both have wildly different aims, and both were very successful at accomplishing them

[Anonymous No.7268812]

>>7268799
>thinking the point was possible to miss, or that a generic point justifies one of the shittiest aesthetic decisions of all time

[Anonymous No.7268841]

I like the book better but the movie is objectively superior. Trims the fat and is far more precise with its message.

[Anonymous No.7268849]

>>7268812
>n-n-no, I got it, I just didn't like it

Backtrack, backtrack, backtrack

[Anonymous No.7268857]

>>7268849
Are you 12 or do you just act like it?

[Anonymous No.7268865]

>>7268812
>every book I read has to be pleasant and follow the same structure

Jej, top pleb

[Anonymous No.7268866]

>>7267771
Michael Cera looks like he could live a long and healthy life, maybe make it into his 90s. The other guy looks like he's got a few more decades left.

[Anonymous No.7268878]

>>7268857
>I-I-I know! I'll call him a twelve year old, that'll show him!

Whatever you say kiddo

[Anonymous No.7268897]

[Anonymous No.7269446]

>>7268841
>>7268849
There literally is no fat
And the movie didn't portray the spontaneous-casual tone he did everything in which was the comedy, or everyone's awkward cognitive dissonance and it didn't compare with the slow burn of him losing his grip
>on the Patty Winter's show today a cheerio sitting on a very small chair was interviewed for 3 hours

It almost feels like it inspired IJ tbh

[Anonymous No.7269460]

>>7267771
What's the point of this picture?

[Anonymous No.7269494]

>>7267691
about the same tbh

they suffer from identical pacing issues and tonal inconsistency

[Anonymous No.7269950]

>>7267691
The book had more edge. I remember it mentioning torturing rats with acid.

[Anonymous No.7269959]

I've always been upset at the movie for excluding the Tom Cruise scene.

[Anonymous No.7269964]

>>7267771
omg, are you telling me that people can be different despite being born in the same year?

[Anonymous No.7270833]

As is often the case with middlebrow novels, the adapted film is usually better. I'd give american psycho the film 7/10 and the book 4/10. It's definitely worth reading if you're an ardent misogynist or you loved the film