American Psycho Analysis

Based on the controversial novel by Bret Easton Ellis, Mary Harron's American Psycho received polarizing responses when it first premiered at the Sundance Film Festival on January 21, 2000. Some moviegoers and critics were turned off by the film's graphic violence and dark humor. However, in recent years the film has gained a cult following. American Psycho is now noted for its satirical look at the yuppie culture of the 1980s and materialism.

American Psycho is set in the late 1980s and told from the point of view of Patrick Bateman (Christian Bale, who also serves as a narrator). Bateman is a 27 year old successful and wealthy investment banker living in Manhattan. He spends most of his time engaged with other shallow people in the Wall Street elite or meeting his fiancee's equally shallow friends. He has a standard morning routine of doing stomach crunches, using specific scrubs in the shower, applying an herb-mint facial mask, as well as using an aftershave with little or no alcohol because "alcohol dries your face out and makes you look older". Bateman is very concerned with his physical appearance.

He's also a serial killer.

American Psycho does not simply engage in gratuitous violence. Instead, it uses violence as a way to make a point about yuppie American culture. The term "yuppie" refers to an individual with a high-paying job and an affluent lifestyle. It is typically used to describe rich people who are not modest about their financial status.

Almost every character in American Psycho is portrayed as a self centered, snobby person. I refrain from using the word "individual" because the characters hardly qualify as individuals. Bateman's friends barely know each other and they barely know themselves. In fact, one of the most notable parts of the film is how the characters constantly mix each other up. Early on in the film, a co-worker, Paul Allen, mistakes Bateman for another co-worker named Marcus Halberstram. Bateman makes no attempt to correct this and simply goes along with it. He mentions numerous similarities between the two men such as how they do the exact same job, have a penchant for Valentino suits, Oliver Peoples glasses, and even go to the same barber (Bateman insists that he has a better haircut). This leads into one of the most famous scenes in the film, the business card scene. The men all show off their business cards. The business cards are nearly identical to everybody but the yuppies themselves. Everybody is vice president and has the same phone number. Everybody at the firm thinks of themselves as the coolest guy in the room, but in reality they are all interchangeable and ultimately insignificant.

Everybody in the yuppie society is extremely selfish. They are portrayed as superficial people who only care about things that involve them. Bateman actually makes little effort to hide his apparently sadistic nature. He says several threatening and disturbing things out loud in the film, including "I'm into murders and executions mostly" and "I like to dissect girls. Did you know I'm utterly insane?" These comments are always either ignored or misinterpreted. The yuppies are so focused on themselves that they fail to see what's right in front of them. They fail to comprehend that Bateman is a psychopath because it has no direct effect on them. In another scene, Bateman brutally kills a co-worker at his apartment, then drags him outside in plain view in a giant overnight bag. An acquaintance sees Bateman put the very heavy bag into his trunk and his only question is "Where did you get that overnight bag?"

Bateman himself isn't much better. A cold-blooded narcissist, Bateman is obsessed with himself and his appearance. Even while with two prostitutes, he decides to admire himself in the mirror rather than paying them any mind. Bateman frequently ignores his equally superficial future wife, referring to her as his "supposed fiancee". In another scene with his fiancee, he is concerned they won't be able to find a "good table" at a restaurant, in spite of the tables not having any clear differences. Most notably, as mentioned before, insignificant business cards are a big deal to him. He is quickly bothered when his card receives less compliments than the others. When he sees Paul Allen's card, which is apparently the superior card, his face seems to be in a trance, showing a mix of both creepy admiration and envy, despite the card having very little difference to his own.

"Look at the subtle off-white coloring, the tasteful thickness of it. My god, it even has a watermark."

At the end of the film, things switch gears and become increasingly surreal. Bateman attempts to push a stray cat into an ATM machine because the ATM machine flashed a message telling him to. Then he shoots a random bystander and engages in a shootout with the police that ends with their car being inexplicably blown up. Even Bateman's face shows confusion when this happens. He finally calls up his lawyer and confesses to several heinous murders. However, the next day, nobody acts like anything happened. He also discovers that the apartment of Allen, the co-worker he supposedly murdered is completely vacant and up for sale. When Bateman tries to confess to murdering Allen to another co-worker, the co-worker takes it as a joke, claiming that it's not possible as he was having dinner with Allen just 10 days ago.

The ending has led to some people interpreting the killings as only occurring in Bateman's imagination. The idea is that Bateman lives in a world so self-centered that a man will pretend to be a serial killer to get attention from others (as mentioned before, he repeatedly makes grotesque comments) but that still won't grab anybody's interest. The other interpretation, as mentioned earlier, is that the murders are real and the film is commenting on the fact that the yuppie culture is so narcissistic that they can't see what's right in front of their eyes. The novel and the film both intentionally leave this answer ambiguous.

Is American Psycho a biting satire of yuppie culture or a psychological study of a deranged mind? In a lot of ways, it could be seen as both. The film remains popular to this day with many praising the performance of Christian Bale and the direction of Mary Harron. The popularity has remained due to the multi-faceted plot and room for interpretation. Theories continue 14 years after its theatrical release because it's more than just a slasher film. It makes audiences think. It makes them think about the society that they live in and how they live their lives. It's as much a character study as it is a thriller, and that's what people like about it.

In Bruges Analysis

When you watch the trailer for the 2008 film In Bruges, it looks like a Guy Ritchie style gangster comedy. Instead, viewers got a complex dark comedy that looks at morality, judgement, and guilt.

At the beginning of the film, we meet two Irish hit men, Ray (Colin Farrell) and Ken (Brendan Gleeson). They are walking in the city of Bruges ("It's in Belgium"). The city is quickly noted for its weird, medieval appearance. It's a small area and few people have even heard of it. It's the perfect place to disappear.

Ken and Ray react to Bruges in different ways. Ken, being the older, wiser one, is endlessly intrigued by the city's beauty. He wants to see the buildings and learn about the city's history. Ray is the exact opposite. He finds the city boring, empty and meaningless. It soon becomes clear that Ray and Ken have little, if anything, in common.

It is quickly revealed that Ray and Ken are waiting on orders from their boss, Harry (Ralph Fiennes). They were sent to Bruges in the first place because Ray accidentally killed a young altar boy while trying to assassinate a priest (who is implied to have done something illegal) as his first job as a hit man. Their job is to stay in Bruges, keep a low profile and wait until Harry calls them for further instructions.

In Bruges is almost strangely optimistic in its portray of its 3 main characters. Despite being criminals, none of them are truly bad people. Perhaps they aren't "good" people, but they're too complex to simply call bad or evil. Ray is tortured by his inability to make things right and is very fixated on the idea of committing suicide due to his extreme guilt. He knows what he did was wrong and makes no attempt to justify it or rationalize it. He's also noted for childlike behavior (both Ken and Harry repeatedly refer to him as "the boy") which may be related to the grieving process of the young altar boy. Ken is portrayed as a generally decent and empathetic guy. He mentions that he feels bad for the people he's killed for Harry, even though most of them weren't exactly nice people. He also tries to save Ray's life. It's eventually hinted at that the only reason he's a hitman is because he owes a debt to Harry, who apparently avenged the death of Ken's wife prior to the events of the film. Harry initially appears to be an unpleasant guy as we quickly see he's foul mouthed and short tempered. However, we also discover that Harry believes that everyone has to take responsibility for their actions and that actions have consequences. For example, he says that if he had killed a child like Ray did, accidentally or not, that he would commit suicide on the spot. Harry also goes to great lengths to ensure that no innocent civilians are killed when he tries to kill Ray, such as not trying to shoot Ray in a room with a pregnant woman. Harry's morals may be seen as black and white, but he still has morals regardless.

In Bruges has what could be the most sympathetic portrayal of a child killer in the history of film. His sympathy connects to the theme of guilt and the effect it has on the guilty person. As mentioned above, Ray is sympathetic not only because the killing was accidental but because he doesn't attempt to rationalize his actions. Instead, Ray spends the entire film dealing with an extreme state of depression. The guilt of what happens seems to never truly leave his mind, even on the occasions where he seems to be focusing on other things. For example (see the image below), right before he's about to go on a date he looks at himself in the mirror and suddenly frowns, almost as if he feels that he doesn't deserve to have a fun night because of what he did.

The concept of redemption is discussed repeatedly. Ray initially doesn't believe he can redeem himself because no matter what he does, the boy is still dead. He later comes to the conclusion that the best way to make things right is to find the mother of the little boy he killed and apologize to her. She can decide what happens to him thereafter. Ken believes that Ray still has the ability to redeem himself, telling Ray that although he killed that little boy, "he can save the next one". In Ken's eyes, the boy will be dead no matter what so Ray should do something good with his life to redeem himself. Harry is the exact opposite. Harry doesn't believe redemption exists. Anybody who kills a child, even himself, should be killed instantly. The film doesn't straight out tell the audience that redemption exists, but the film does spend a lot of time with Ray to make him a sympathetic character and portrays him as a generally decent person, despite Harry's insistence that Ray should die because he did a bad thing.

In the last third of the movie, Harry and Ken spend a lengthy amount of time debating whether Ray should live or die. Meanwhile, Ray is none the wiser. The city of Bruges itself is like a purgatory. Ken is an angel hoping to save Ray. Harry is like the Grim Reaper who wants to punish a man for his sins. Ray is stuck in Bruges waiting for his fate to be decided. He discusses the concept of Purgatory early in the film, saying “Purgatory’s kind of like the in-betweeny one. You weren’t really s**t, but you weren't all that great either." Characters can't seem to decide whether Bruges is a "fairy tale" or a "s**thole". Maybe it's a little bit of both, and not really either at the same time. It's purgatory, meant for the morally ambiguous, which makes it an ideal place for the 3 main characters to be in.

Despite a limited release in February 2008, In Bruges has gone on to gain a cult following. Colin Farrell won a Golden Globe for his performance, the film received an Academy Award nomination for Best Screenplay, and the film has an 8.0 rating on IMDb, which is very respectable by their standards. Thanks to its natural blending of dark comedy and drama, and its sophisticated approach to its themes, In Bruges remains a memorable film 6 years after its release.

Casablanca Analysis

First premiering on November 22, 1942, Casablanca is now considered to be one of the greatest Hollywood films of all time. Set during World War II, it tells the story of American Expatriate Rick Blaine as he must choose between either being with Ilsa, the woman who he loves, or helping her Czech Resistance leader husband escape the city of Casablanca and continue to fight against the Nazis. Released nearly a year after the US joined World War II, the film is notable for its social commentary and symbolism.

Casablanca's overall rating on the review site Rotten Tomatoes remains high to this day

Rick Blaine could in many ways be seen as a metaphor for the United States foreign policy of the era. Rick prides himself on neutrality. People around him are fighting and he openly states his intentions to not get involved and to mind his own business. However, it's shown that Rick is not quite as neutral as he says he is. He ran guns to Ethiopia and fought on the loyalist side of the Spanish Civil War. He also chooses to help a Bulgarian couple win enough money to go to America. Similar to Rick, the United States was officially neutral but leaned towards the Allies, doing things such as supplying Britain, the Soviet Union, and China with war material through Lend-Lease, as well as deploying the US military to replace the British invasion forces in Iceland in July 1941.

The romance between Rick and Ilsa is one of the most famous romances in movie history and plays a role in Rick's sympathy towards the Allies.

Another example of Rick's not so neutral position is shown in the beginning of the film when Ugarte appears in Rick's cafe boasting the possession of "letters of transit" as the result of murdering two German couriers. Although Rick is hesitant at first, he agrees to house the letters, knowing the amount of risk he would be placed into, yet aware of the impact the letters could have on a refugee's life. Similar to the United States, Rick doesn't want to be involved but is unable to avoid his sympathetic leanings toward the allies. America's isolationist policies are portrayed as being morally questionable at best while Rick's choice to help people and intervene is portrayed in a positive light. Some might argue that Rick's cafe itself symbolizes America as a country while Rick symbolizes American policies. Refugees from all over the world wait there while trying to make it to the United States. It's a safe haven for those who wish to get away from the vicious war as soon as possible.

                                

Dooley Wilson as Sam, playing the very important piano

Besides the cafe itself, the film is also notable for Sam, the piano player at the cafe, or more specifically, the piano itself. Sam is the one character without any apparent character flaws and numerous people go to the cafe to see him play the piano. The piano symbolizes general moral decency. In a world plagued by a massive war, people find peace in seeing Sam play the piano because it's so elegant and peaceful. The inability to stay neutral is largely related to the idea of general moral decency. The piano is an escape for many people, but it is also proven to have the ability to bring people together. The most famous example is when the German soldiers begin playing the national anthem on the piano only for the rest of the bar patrons to begin singing "La Marseillaise" in a brave act of defiance.


As Casablanca was released while World War II was still very much alive, it was noted for how politically relevant it was. While U.S. foreign policy has certainly changed, it still deals with pertinent themes of interventionism and sacrifice, and provides 21st century viewers a look at life in the early 1940s. The emotional script and engaging performances also add to the entertainment value that continues to this day.

Blade Runner Analysis

Blade Runner Analysis

Blade Runner is a science fiction neo-noir thriller set in a futuristic dystopian Los Angeles in the year 2019. The film tells the story of how a corporation known as the Tyrell Corporation built humanoid slaves called Replicants. After a mutiny by Replicants in an off-world colony, Replicants were officially banned from living on Earth. Police officers known as Blade Runners were ordered to shoot and kill any Replicant found tresspassing on Earth. It's referred to as "retiring" rather than "killing" in an attempt to rationalize their actions. The film is told from the point of view of a retired Blade Runner named Rick Deckard who is forced to return to his job when four Replicants sneak onto Earth.

When it was first released in 1982, Blade Runner received mixed reviews from critics. Many were expecting a straightforward, simple action film. Others felt that the story took a backseat to the special effects. A few felt that the movie would stand the test of time. Today, Blade Runner is ranked #134 on the IMDb top 250 and has a 91% positive rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

Edward James Olmos as Gaff

A recurring motif in Blade Runner is its eye imagery. When the character of Gaff is introduced, one of his most notable physical features is his icy blue eyes. Gaff is a Blade Runner. As established above, that means he tracks down and kills bioengineered beings known as Replicants for a living. While we never see Gaff actually do his job, it's established that he's very good at it and Gaff's icy blue eyes show how being a Blade Runner has made him a cold and calculating man. Ironically, it also makes him seem less human.

 The first eye we see is presumed to be a Blade Runner named Holden as he gazes at the landscape that introduces us into the film's mysterious world. We then see the Voight Kampf test, which determines an individual's emotional responses by measuring the reflex action in their eye, thus showing how eyes can define one's humanity. The Replicants seem to think highly of their eyes. When Replicants Roy and Kowalski interrogate a man named Chew, who designed eyes for the Tyrell Corporation, and thus designed their eyes, Roy remarks "If only you could see what I've seen with your eyes". Roy knows that he is a Replicant but seems to have a small sense of inner peace with his eyes.

Indeed the idea of what defines a human is another key theme in Blade Runner. The Replicants look identical to humans so one cannot tell who is who simply by a glance. The idea of showing humanity is a phrase usually used when referring to someone who has shown kindness or decency. Deckard is the main Blade Runner of the story but is not exactly full of emotion and tends to lack qualities that are normally considered "human". Gaff is like a more extreme version of Deckard, coming off as a machine designed to kill. Contrasting that is the Replicants, particularly Roy Batty, who chooses to save Deckards life even though Deckard was trying to "retire" him. Have humans lost their humanity? Have machines become the more honest species? A common interpretation of the film is that Deckard is a Replicant himself, because in the director's cut, he has a dream involving a unicorn and Gaff later leaves an origami unicorn in his apartment. Since Deckard never told anyone about the dream, the only way Gaff could have known would be if someone planted that dream into him, which is exactly what happens to Replicants. This would imply that a reason for Deckard's lack of emotions is due to him not knowing (and thus not accepting) what he really is.

Harrison Ford as Rick Deckard 

Blade Runner is also noted for its similarities to Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. Both stories are about humans being destroyed by their own creations. The film has messages from both the perspectives of the humans and the Replicants. The humans learn (or rather need to learn) that all actions have consequences and progress will not be made if mistakes are simply swept under the rug. From the Replicants' point of view, similar to Frankenstein, there could be a message about challenging God and God's will. Both Frankenstein's monster and the Replicants challenge their creators and while all four Replicants are dead by the end of the film, their moral superiority to humanity is made apparent. In addition, humanity (the creators) are shown to be living in a rather unpleasant society as a result of their own lack of responsibility, showing that being a creator doesn't make somebody superior.

Today Blade Runner is seen as one of the most complex science fictions films ever made with its many themes being analyzed by film scholars and film buffs alike. Arguably Ridley Scott's most personal film, 32 years later, Blade Runner has stood the test of time.

Road to Perdition Analysis

In the hands of a different director, Road to Perdition could have been a run of the mill action film. In the hands of Academy Award Winner Sam Mendes (American Beauty), Road to Perdition is instead a morally complicated film about the effect violence has on society and the relationships between fathers and sons.

Michael Sullivan (Tom Hanks) is working as an enforcer for Irish-American gangster John Rooney (Paul Newman) in Rock Island, Illinois. Although he is willing to use violence when necessary, Michael is also a fairly affable guy. He's a good husband and a kind father to his two sons who are unaware of his criminal activities. However, Sullivan's older son, Michael Jr. decides to sneak into Sullivan's car to see what he does for a living. He witnesses Sullivan and Connor Rooney (John Rooney's son) interrogate a disgruntled associate. This ends with Connor impulsively murdering the associate fully in Michael's view. After realizing that Michael witnessed the murder, it is decided that the entire Sullivan family is a liability so Rooney reluctantly orders their murders. Sullivan and Michael Jr. manage to escape and end up trying to protect each other while also looking for the men who murdered their family.

Water is a major motif seen throughout the movie. Water is associated with death in almost every scene it appears. We first see water dripping into a bucket near a coffin at a funeral. Later, we see several gangsters brutally shot during a heavy rainstorm and another man is executed while sitting in a bathtub. At the end of the film, people are killed at the shore of Lake Michigan. Associating water with death shows how death is something natural, even when it happens at unexpected times. Death, like water, is not something that can just go away. In fact, it's simply part of the world and there would be no world without it. As we witness the death of (SPOILER ALERT) gangster John Rooney during a heavy rainstorm, he is calm and not afraid. He accepts that he is going to die and is shown to be more at peace with himself than most of the other characters who die.

Tom Hanks was praised for his performance as the sympathetic gangster Michael Sullivan

The title of the film has a double meaning. On a literal scale, it refers to the town that Sullivan and Michael Jr. are heading to after they go on the run. However, it means a lot more if you know the meaning of the word "perdition. In Christian theology, perdition is "a state of eternal punishment and damnation into which a sinful and unpenitent person passes after death". In other words, it's another term for hell. Sullivan has arguably already taken a road to hell but he is determined to not let his son take the road to perdition as well. Sullivan wants his son to know that he has choices and is not simply a product of his environment. Even though he and his son are now on the run and surviving gun fights, Sullivan wants to ensure that his son sees no glamorization in this. Sullivan feels that he is too late for personal redemption but hopes to  have some form of redemption by having his son be a better man than he is.

Tyler Hoechlin as Michael Sullivan Jr.

Although remembered as a Tom Hanks film, Road to Perdition is mainly told from the perspective of his son, Michael Sullivan Jr. The loss of innocence is perhaps the most clear cut theme in the film. Michael Jr. is young and naive at the beginning of the film. He is ultimately devastated after learning what his father does for a living and his innocence seems to be mostly lost. However, this doesn't stop his father from trying to cling onto what innocence is still left. He teaches his son how to drive and to be kind to other people (they give money to an elderly couple on a farm who shelters them). However, the most important scene occurs at the end of the film. Michael Sullivan Sr. prevents his son from killing a man by shooting him himself. This man was a murderer with the intentions of killing both of them which would make the killing a clear case of self defense. Regardless, Sullivan knew that his son killing a man, even justifiably, would haunt him forever and change the person he would ultimately be. Sullivan ultimately gains some form of redemption at the end, not only by saving his son's life, but by saving what little innocence he had left.


Road to Perdition is remembered more as a film about the bond of the two Michael Sullivans than a simple mob story. Through the complex themes brought by director Sam Mendes, screenwriter David Self, and the performances of its cast, Road to Perdition has had a lasting effect for many viewers.

themovieblog.com review

The Movie Blog is a very large site with a large variety of features for movie lovers to enjoy.

The film includes discussion of movie news and trailers. However, if there is any problem that I have, some of the posts seem too short. There are great ideas, but due to the short length, things seem to be only dissected at the surface. For example, a post by Bud Boomer about Ben Stiller's the Secret Life of Walter Mitty, praises the film. Boomer calls it inspiring and compliments the complexity of the main character, but fails to dig into the details of why Walter Mitty is complicated, thus leaving readers feeling a bit unsure how to feel after reading the post.

If there's anything to appreciate about The Movie Blog, it's that its vague title allows a lot of movie related topics to be discussed. This includes reviews, new trailers, new posters, discussion of strong promotion vs. weak promotion, and movie lists.

Like some of the movies they criticize, the website can be inconsistent in terms of quality. This is likely due to the site being run by dozens of different people, some more experienced at writing blog posts than others. In contrast to the Secret Life of Walter Mitty review, the Saving Mr. Banks review is a far more fascinating read. The film's review is mixed, one noted criticism aimed towards the simplicity of the Walt Disney character played by Academy Award Winner Tom Hanks, while also praising the complexity of P.L. Travers played by Academy Award Winner Emma Thompson. The most interesting part of the review is when the theme of redemption is discussed and how it shapes the characters and the overall tone of the movie.

Another interesting part of the site is the sporadic interviews, a recent example being Leonardo Dicaprio and Martin Scorcese discusssing their new film, The Wolf of Wall Street. Questions asked include the obvious like why Dicaprio wanted to be in the film, but other questions are more unusual such as the purpose of some of the more outrageous sex and drug scenes in the film as well as how the film compares in terms of themes to Scorcese's 1990 gangster classic, Goodfellas.


All in all, The Movie Blog is not the movie site on the internet. Some posts are boring or too short, but when they're good, they're really good and the site is worth visiting for the good posts, even if you have to weed through the lesser ones to find them.

Rogerebert.com review

Rogerebert.com is the former website of the late Roger Ebert (1942-2013). It is no longer used by Roger Ebert for obvious reasons but is now frequently operated by several other staff members and Mr. Ebert's wife Chaz Ebert.

The site reviews a variety of movies that come out, including mainstream blockbusters and indie films that few have heard of. Movies are both critiqued by their overall quality and have their style analyzed. In the review for Spike Jonze's "Her", Glenn Kenny discusses the positive effect that the film's cinematography has on the quality of the film, rather than simply praising the acting and script (though he does that too). A similar example is Christy Lemire's discussion of black and white used in Alexander Payne's Nebraska. She praises the way that the black and white gives notice to a sense of decay and melancholy in the story, unlike many films where it's meant to be nostalgic.

There is another section on the site dedicated entirely to the blogs of several contributors to the site, including Ebert himself. Ebert's blog is obviously no longer active but one of the most notable posts, "Movies that are made forever", doesn't analyze any particular film, but rather film in general. He discusses how certain movies are like sausages ("Grind up everything that's usable, stuff it into the casing of a marketing campaign, package them six to the weekend, pull them off sale after they begin to spoil") and how other films have a fervent passion and a need to be seen on the big screen, giving a careful examination of movies that are made for profit vs. movies that are made for more complex reasons.

Jim Emerson's blog, Scanners (titled after the David Cronenberg film) has both movie and non-movie discussions. The movie discussions include analysis on how multiple people make the movie. For example, Emerson praises Christoph Waltz in Django Unchained for not simply being a mouth piece for director Quentin Tarantino, which he feels is all too common for Tarantino films. He explains how a great actors can make cliche dialogue sound good and strong direction can create strong performances.

The site even features a question simply titled "Great Movies" which attempts to break down films that are held in high regard. David Lynch's Mulholland Dr. is dissected in an unusual way by Roger Ebert. Ebert not only discusses what  the film could mean, but also the effect that the film has on people. He discusses how nobody has a common consensus on the complex film, how perhaps the creature lurking outside of the diner isn't supposed to be anything but a visual strategy, and how David Lynch's love of archetypes, genres, and obligatory shots shape the film. It's an unusually thoughtful analysis.

Rogerebert.com is a fairly effective site for both hardcore movie buffs and casual viewers. The casual movie fans can enjoy the reviews discussing the quality of the movie while the film buffs can find great appreciation in the inquiries of various motion pictures.