Another ‘American Psycho’ Adaptation — Too Soon?

Luca Guadagnino and Lionsgate announced that the “Call Me by Your Name” and “Queer” director is in final discussions to film a new version of Bret Eason Ellis’ dark horror novel “American Psycho,” nearly 25 years after the same company released Mary Harron’s satirical adaptation. In a key role that elevated his career, the 2000 film starred Christian Bale as yuppie investment banker-turned-serial killer Patrick Bateman.

It’s the kind of announcement destined to raise eyebrows. Guadagnino is in a career sweet spot after “Challengers” and “Queer” this year (and “After the Hunt” in post); he already has many projects in the works, including “Separate Rooms” with Josh O’Connor and a Thomas Mann adaptation in early development. So why is he choosing a remake — and for a film that doesn’t seem that long ago?

New versions of older films are not unusual. Even the word “remake” is tricky here — does that apply with adaptations? (For this discussion, they do.) Dashiell Hammett’s 1930 novel “The Maltese Falcon” saw three adaptations in the space of a decade, the last one being John Huston’s 1941 film. Alfred Hitchcock directed two versions of “The Man Who Knew Too Much” 22 years apart. Oscar Best Picture winners like “Mutiny on the Bounty,” “Ben-Hur” (itself a remake), “West Side Story,” and “All the King’s Men” have all been redone.

‘Invasion of the Body Snatchers’Allied Artists/Kobal/REX/Shutterstock

One extreme example: In the 41 years between “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” (1956) and “The Invasion” (2007), four other versions were made by American studios for theatrical release. In the 21st century, we’ve already seen more than 50 studio wide releases based on films made 30 or fewer years earlier. This doesn’t even include English-language remakes such as “The Departed” or musical versions of earlier films.

“American Psycho” is, in part, connected to the most common genre for remakes: horror. In the last 25 years, we’ve seen retreads of 20th-century IP like “Halloween,” “Nightmare on Elm Street,” “The Exorcist” and “Night of the Living Dead,” among others.

There are also gender swaps (“What Women Want” becomes “What Men Want”) and racial shifts (“Heaven Can Wait” becomes “Down to Earth”). Michael Mann’s adaptation “Manhunter” came out in 1988; 16 years later, it reverted to the book’s original title, “Red Dragon,” enabling Anthony Hopkins to reprise his Oscar-winning role as Hannibal Lecter in 2002.

The remake gap for “Total Recall” was 22 years; “RoboCop,” 27 years; and “Conan the Barbarian” 29 years. It took 17 years for “Judge Dredd” to revive as “Dredd” and 28 years for “Red Dawn.” Comedies are less frequent, but “The Bad News Bears,” “Arthur,” and “The In-Laws” all saw under three decades pass before new versions.

So why might a new version of “American Psycho” seem premature? Budgeted at $7 million, the 2000 film was not a huge success at $34 million worldwide, but it was profitable. More importantly, while initial reviews ranged from “bloody banality” (Washington Post) to “Christian Bale is heroic” (Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times), it’s now regarded as a distinctive take on recent contemporary society, violence and all.

‘Taxi Driver’

It’s a description that might fit classics like “A Clockwork Orange,” Taxi Driver,” “Midnight Cowboy,” “Requiem for a Dream,” and “Trainspotting,” none of which have been remade. (There was “T2 Trainspotting” in 2017.) Most were released as X or NC-17, or were edited down to R (as was “American Psycho”).

“American Psycho” is now cult classic rather than Criterion Collection, but it’s admired for Bale’s career-making performance (among other things, it’s one of his patented body-transformation roles, in this case to peak physical condition) as well as its controversy. (The 2000 version overcame a rare F CinemaScore.)

Guadagnino also remade Dario Argento’s classic “Suspiria,” so he’s unafraid of risking comparisons. However, “American Psycho” is a film that doesn’t have proven commercial appeal, fit easily into a popular genre (slasher-satire? dark comedy-horror?), or a beloved story — but it is a magnet for controversy over its interpretation.

Still, there’s room to grow. Ellis’ “American Psycho” novel was controversial upon publication — its protagonist is white, privileged, racist, classist, homophobic, and sexist — and Herron’s film veered considerably from the source. Its development path included David Cronenberg, Oliver Stone, Johnny Depp, Brad Pitt, and Leonardo DiCaprio. Any variable would have led to very different results.

All that — plus Guadagnino’s own distinctive vision and style — suggests a new take is plausible. Casting will be critical, especially with the Bale comparisons. (Guadagnino actors like Timothée Chalamet and Drew Starkey are among the many possibilities.) Scott Z. Burns is writing the new adaptation; he’s acclaimed as the writer of “Contagion” and the writer/director of “The Report.” Meanwhile, Ellis is writing and executive producing an adaptation of his 2021 novel “The Shards” for HBO.

As Guadagnino fans get excited over his take, recall that a few of his announced remakes and projects failed to realize. These include a gender-flipped “Lord of the Flies,” a “Scarface” revamp, and a Scotty Bowers gay hustler film. Guadagnino was even rumored to adapt “The Shards.” (“Dream Scenario” director Kristoffer Borgli is now at the helm.)

If Guadagnino’s “American Psycho” does come to pass in this format, it’s a victory for theaters: Finally, a famous novel that didn’t become a streaming series.