A girl named Rachael Newman has developed a taste for murder and will stop at nothing to become a college professor's assistant.A girl named Rachael Newman has developed a taste for murder and will stop at nothing to become a college professor's assistant.A girl named Rachael Newman has developed a taste for murder and will stop at nothing to become a college professor's assistant.
Geraint Wyn Davies
- Daniels
- (as Geraint Wyn-Davies)
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaThe film began production with no association to American Psycho (2000), and it wasn't decided to repurpose it until it had already started filming. Bret Easton Ellis, the author of the original novel, claims the studio wanted to include a serial killer subplot in The Rules of Attraction (2002) but the filmmakers objected to the idea, leading to this film.
- Goofs(at around 38 mins) The second scene in Professor Starkman's class takes place two days after the first one yet everyone is wearing the same clothing and the word "Nicknames!" is still the only thing written on the blackboard.
- Quotes
Rachael Newman: [after strangling Brian with a condom] Ribbed, for her pleasure.
- ConnectionsFeatured in Shameful Sequels: American Psycho 2 (2013)
- SoundtracksIn the Meantime
Performed by The Dirtmitts (as Dirtmitts)
Written by The Dirtmitts (as Dirtmitts)
Courtesy of Sonic Unyon Records
Published by Sonic Unyon Distribution
Featured review
You can just imagine the scene in some movie producers office :
" You know that movie set in the 1980s where Christian Bale kills his colleagues ? "
" Yeah vaguely "
" Well I just wrote the sequel "
" Is that the one where both Bale's character and Bale himself don't make an appearance , instead we have a teenage bimbo bumping off people she doesn't like ? "
" Yeah "
" Then why's your screenplay called TEENAGE BIMBO GOES ON KILLING SPREE ? Shouldn't either the words American or Psycho appear if it's a sequel ? "
" Hey I never thought of that "
"And it's probably illegal to call something a sequel if it has absolutely no connection with the original movie "
" Thanks for pointing that out boss . I'll rewrite the opening scene even if it contradicts the first movie . Let's do lunch "
I'm sort of guessing the producers had what's known in Britain as " A liquid lunch " or possibly they had something even stronger . As many people on this site have pointed out AP2:AAG not only hints that not only does it have nothing in common with the original movie it also seems to contradict AP . The story centres around Rachael Newman who would have been about four years old during the events of the first film . Why did anyone have to use the character of Patrick Bateman to set up the story here ? It's not even a plausible set up and it's not a plausible story in the first place . Perhaps the most ridiculous thing is how on earth Rachael would be physically able to commit these crimes because Mila Kunis doesn't look an inch taller than five foot , doesn't look an ounce heavier than ninety pounds and yet is able to commit acts of extreme violence with a sharp object . Realising this unlikely scenario the director wisely often cuts to a different scene when Rachael bumps off a victim . But this doesn't stop other massive plot holes like the police not checking for DNA when the victim of a car crash is found at the end of the movie
AP2:AAG is yet another cynical attempt to sell a stupid movie as a " Black comedy " but this is done in an even more cynical manner since it's a serial killer screenplay marketed as the sequel to a totally unrelated movie . It might have funny moments but these I'm sure are totally unintentional . If you saw the original you will hate this , if you haven't you will still hate this . Perhaps the motive behind it was to make the original appear much better than it actually was . If so then the producers have succeeded
" You know that movie set in the 1980s where Christian Bale kills his colleagues ? "
" Yeah vaguely "
" Well I just wrote the sequel "
" Is that the one where both Bale's character and Bale himself don't make an appearance , instead we have a teenage bimbo bumping off people she doesn't like ? "
" Yeah "
" Then why's your screenplay called TEENAGE BIMBO GOES ON KILLING SPREE ? Shouldn't either the words American or Psycho appear if it's a sequel ? "
" Hey I never thought of that "
"And it's probably illegal to call something a sequel if it has absolutely no connection with the original movie "
" Thanks for pointing that out boss . I'll rewrite the opening scene even if it contradicts the first movie . Let's do lunch "
I'm sort of guessing the producers had what's known in Britain as " A liquid lunch " or possibly they had something even stronger . As many people on this site have pointed out AP2:AAG not only hints that not only does it have nothing in common with the original movie it also seems to contradict AP . The story centres around Rachael Newman who would have been about four years old during the events of the first film . Why did anyone have to use the character of Patrick Bateman to set up the story here ? It's not even a plausible set up and it's not a plausible story in the first place . Perhaps the most ridiculous thing is how on earth Rachael would be physically able to commit these crimes because Mila Kunis doesn't look an inch taller than five foot , doesn't look an ounce heavier than ninety pounds and yet is able to commit acts of extreme violence with a sharp object . Realising this unlikely scenario the director wisely often cuts to a different scene when Rachael bumps off a victim . But this doesn't stop other massive plot holes like the police not checking for DNA when the victim of a car crash is found at the end of the movie
AP2:AAG is yet another cynical attempt to sell a stupid movie as a " Black comedy " but this is done in an even more cynical manner since it's a serial killer screenplay marketed as the sequel to a totally unrelated movie . It might have funny moments but these I'm sure are totally unintentional . If you saw the original you will hate this , if you haven't you will still hate this . Perhaps the motive behind it was to make the original appear much better than it actually was . If so then the producers have succeeded
- Theo Robertson
- Apr 21, 2005
- Permalink
Details
Box office
- Budget
- $10,000,000 (estimated)
- Runtime1 hour 28 minutes
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 1.85 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content