Previous Comments

[1] On Apr-19-2005, Chris Fabulous wrote:

Word on the street is that it's not the book.

CF

[2] On Apr-19-2005, Chris Fabulous wrote:

Now that the comment I was referring to is gone, that one doesn't make sense.

CF

[3] On Apr-20-2005, Nick wrote:

Less Than Zero was the second Bret Easton Ellis book I've read, American Psycho my first. I must say, Less Than Zero is still my favorite novel from Ellis. This is probably because I am still a teenager, and at the age of eighteen, I feel that I can relate to Clay and the others in the story more than I can to Victor Ward or even Sean Bateman for that matter.

I cried for days after finishing Less Than Zero. My life was changed because of this book, and the way I write has been greatly affected because of Mr. Ellis' works as well.

When I watched the film version of Less Than Zero, I was extremely pissed off. Lets face it; the movie sucks ass. The 'casual passivity' that is portrayed in the book was completely lost, and the movie turned Mr. Ellis' work into something terrible; making it seem like a piece that has high morals. Clay's bleak outlook of life was completely lost in the film, instead he became a hero, trying to save his friend from the world of Cocaine. God the movie was horrible!

I just hope that someday, when Roger Avary is done with Glamorama, maybe he'll consider going back and redoing the Less Than Zero film. It sure needs it, and Mr. Acary would do a hell of a lot better job than the original, afdter all, he seems to be the o nly one who can adapt Ellis onto film and do a decent job with it.

[4] On Apr-20-2005, Kyle wrote:

The problem I have with Avary is that he changes the story too much.

[5] On Apr-21-2005, Eredsox wrote:

"People are afraid to merge on freeways on Los Angeles"......says it all

[6] On Apr-21-2005, Nick wrote:

True, Avary did change the story, or at least the order of it, but look at how much the original version of Less Than Zero was changed. American Psycho was probably the film that was the most faithful to the story of an Ellis book, but Rules captured the mood the best. We at least need someone who can come and remake 'Zero' and keep the dark and depressing attitude that the book portrayed, that was so lost in the movie.

[7] On Apr-21-2005, Chris Fabulous wrote:

I think Less Than Zero, while good, lacks a lot of the refined perfection in storytelling that make his other novels so killer. I particularly thought the ending with Julian in trouble and whatnot was all too "on the nose" and ham-fisted. I like the book, but I don't think Ellis had quite matured as a writer at that point.

I've never seen the movie, and I don't want to. By all accounts, it's horrible and I don't want to watch a horrible movie wipe its ass with a good book.

I disliked the Rules movie because it fucked up the Lauren character, the dynamics of the relationship between her and Sean, and downplayed the ambiguity of Sean and Paul?s relationship. There were some good scenes, particularly the ?Victor in Europe? section, but, in general, I thought that Avery blew it.

On the other hand, American Psycho is one of my favorite movies of all time, and I think Mary Harron really got it right. Ellis doesn?t think so, but it really, really worked for me. Christian Bale is perfect. Ellis says it wasn?t ?crazy? or ?wild? enough, but it was plenty crazy and wild, in my opinion. Even if it wasn?t, that?s not exactly the point, in my opinion. Oh well.

CF

[8] On Apr-22-2005, Tom wrote:

Has anyone seen the film adaptation of the novel? And, if so, do you know if the people who made the movie actually READ this book?

[9] On Apr-22-2005, wrote:

i actually think they might not have.

[10] On Apr-23-2005, Kyle wrote:

If they did, they totally missed the point, which is funny, if you think about it, considering they're making a film about something they don't understand.

[11] On Apr-24-2005, wrote:

it should be re-made and stay true to the book, at least to the tone or themes or the mood of the book! it's very relevant to today. nicole richie always makes me think of less than zero.

[12] On Apr-24-2005, Chris Fabulous wrote:

No offense, but why is it so important to everyone that a movie be made from every book that's good? It's as though a film is the highest echelon of achievement, and the book is just a stepping stone for the story to be put to film. I personally don't care if any book I like gets made into a movie because {a} 9 times out of 10 it sucks (b) 99 times out of 100 it's not as good as the book and (c) the books are great like they are and don't need to be improved upon. Just my two cents.

CF

[13] On Apr-25-2005, Cakes wrote:

I saw the movie. Apologies for not remembering character names other than Clay. Some parts are kept the same, such as the gay sex things. But someone else noted how Clay is a hero in the movie, the "nice guy" that is a role model, while we all know that in the book he is nowhere near such.The movie doesn't suck, it just Hollywood-izes the book into something more mainstream. In the 1980's, who would've paid money to watch something as depressing as the book?

[14] On Apr-26-2005, Felix wrote:

That's right. A 1:1-adaptation (as far as possible) would just be boring for the audience (except for BEE-fans). A Hollywood movie has to have a story, some suspense and so on... Otherways it wouldn't be a success. What works as a book needn't work as a movie. Rules are different.

@ Chris Fabulous:
I see it a little different. I always like to see movie-adaptations, just to see in which way the storywriter/director interpreted the novel. I think that's quite interesting.

[15] On Apr-26-2005, Chris Fabulous wrote:

Felix,
I like to watch the movies made from books I'm into for the same reason, but I'm not pining for them to be made into movies, either. I love the Fight Club movie (which I saw before I read the book), and the American Psycho movie as well. I don't think that somehow validates the books or Chuck or Ellis or the importance thereof. It's not that big of a deal to me is all I'm saying.

CF

[16] On Apr-27-2005, Felix wrote:

Chris,

Ok I know now what you meant and I totally agree with you ;).

[17] On May-02-2005, Kenneth wrote:

"Has anyone seen the film adaptation of the novel? And, if so, do you know if the people who made the movie actually READ this book?"

It was a complete waste of perfectly good celluloid, and a few talented actors.

[18] On May-02-2005, Kenneth wrote:

Another way of seeing this book is that it doesn't abide by traditional narrative conventions. Traditional tragedy or comedy requres in some sense that characters want something, and they either get what they want (comedy) or that that desire leads to their ruin (tragedy). When you have a novel wherein people don't particularly want anything, it's difficult to have a comic or tragic ending. But then I guess that's sort of the point.

Imagine for a second though if Fitzgerald could be resurrected, and tasked to write a novel set in this milieu. We might end up with all the parties and drugs and debauchery, but maybe a vaguely unbalanced Blair obsessed with Clay, and a Clay infatuated with someone else entirely, ending perhaps in a murder/suicide (Blair blows Clay away, kills self). Then you'd have a genuine tragedy.

I love what Ellis did with this book, but part of the reason it is so hard to adapt well to film is that it disobeys narrative conventions.

[19] On Jun-10-2005, Bret Schlyer wrote:

Just a test.