Far more gruesome that the film. But the film does a fantastic job adapting and shortening it to a film's length. Quite a bit of the book is referenced in the movie. When he calls his lawyer at the end, everything he's confessing to that's not seen in the film is out of the book.
others have already answered your question really amazingly but I want to also give my two cents. I highly recommend that you read the book. It's really, really sickening as well as very, very funny- It's more intense than the movie in general.
We all know how it's going to be, they'll switch banking with hitech and behave like it's 2004 and those companies are still entirely dominated by white men rather than 80% female.
They will also shoehorn Trump into it.
Even if it's a great adaptation that is near perfect, I really don't think it will ever be as good as the original film.
That would be true to Bateman's character, but anachronistic if the story doesn't take place in the 80s.
One theory is that while clearly not gay and being visibly disgusted by him, Patrick avoided killing Luis as he's one of the few people (e.g. Jean) we see in the film that give him a sense of genuine affection. Compare and contrast that to every other character in which it's all fake / superficial, with not the slightest hint of actual care regarding Bateman as a person.
I suggested it earlier unironically. Bateman of the 2000's is simply an extinct beast in modern times and trying to use him in anything modern will at best fall flat.
And Tom calls him Patrick Batman instead of Bateman
It's the same with James Bond, the "rich man charm" thing just doesn't exists with black people or a woman? It would be dead on arrival.
Yeah, and how did it play out? I'm sure it was a huge success....
