American Psycho
- Started
- Last post
- 33 Responses
- Jaline0
He was damn hot in that film AND killed Jared Leto. SCORE!
*ahem
anyway, I don't think he murdered anyone at all, unless the whole world around him knew all that he had done but protected him after he thought he was going to be caught. But that's unlikely.
I am following this post with other people's opinions.
- flavorful0
I have to return some videotapes.
- Jaline0
Opinions from viewers:
--------------------------------...KILLINGS WERE NOT REAL:
--------------------------------...01. "Through out the film Bateman says something here and there that would normally draw suspicion, but no one seems to notice. For example, the scene in the bar where he says to the bartender, "I want to stab you to death, and then play around with your blood." You think the girl didn't notice, but he didn't actually say those words. He only wanted to.
Another example: Before he was breaking up with his fiancée Evelyn, he said, "I need to engage in homicidal behaviour on a massive scale. It can not be corrected but I have no other way to fulfill my needs." Now if he really did say that (and not just imagine himself saying it), wouldn't she have that it was an odd think to say? Instead she acts like she didn't hear him.
And after he killed Paul Allen and drags his body across the lobby, there was a trail of blood left behind, however, no one gave any notice to it. It's like it wasn't even there.
I think toward the end, things got pretty obvious. Like the ATM machine displaying: Feed me a stray cat.
I think it really hit me that the murders weren't real when Jean found the drawings. It's clear. Think about it. Him sitting in his chair, drawing his imagination, wanting to do it so bad that he believed he actually did. Those killings we saw were the drawings played in his mind.
In my opinion, the script was written in a way to make you decide and figure it out yourself. Which is why I loved this movie so much. Not only is it entertaining (Bale's performance was by far the best I've seen in an actor), but it gives you clues that are hidden between the lines.
Now I've only seen the movie once, so there may be other scenes in the movie I've missed that may or may not support my opinion."
02. "The killings are all taking place in Patrick's head.
Before and after he kills the prostitutes he draws pictures of himself with them
and of himself killing them and then acts them out in his twisted imagination thinking that they are real. Which is why there are no bodies in Paul Allen's closet or anywhere else in the apartment.As for the shoot-out in the streets he begins imagining it when the ATM tells him the feed it a stray cat which is obviously impossible and demented. Then it becomes even more demented when he blows up two police cars just by shooting them.
And the ending is good because as he says himself his confession was pointless because his lawyer had dinner with Paul in london several times making it impossible for him to be mistaken. Also, the lawyer thinks this is all a sick joke so at the end of the conversation he doesn't care because he is a lawyer and doesn't care about other peoples problems and only cares about his status and his income."
03. "The murders were all in his imagination. There are some obvious clues that show this:
- When he went back to the apartment, it was all clean and painted. Had it actually been a murder scene, there would be cops and CSI guys all over the place, and the area would be taped off as a crime scene. The police wouldn't have allowed it to be repainted, and there certainly wouldn't be a realtor showing the place to some would-be buyers/renters the next day!
- There is no way he would cause two cop cars to blow up by shooting them with a handgun. That was so over-the-top as to be laughable. Again, he imagined the whole thing.
- The guy he supposedly killed with an axe was actually very much alive and well at the end of the movie.
The whole thing was all just his fantasy."
--------------------------------...
KILLINGS WERE REAL:
01. "You remember how Patrick called himself Paul Allen, right? You remember how everyone else called him either Marcus Halberstram or other names, right? That's how he got away with it. Nobody knew who anyone else was, identities were mixed up, everyone was interchangeable. It's a satire on homogenous, 80s yuppie culture. Not "pure entertainment." The movie had a very clear message. Also, a satire is not very effective if everything is imagined.
Think about it like this, and let me know if your opinion changes, even just a little bit. Patrick killed the hooker and the call girl at Paul Allen's apartment. He killed Paul Allen at his apartment, but took his body to Hell's Kitchen -- this is not a neighborhood anyone would ever look for a high-profile Wall Street businessman, by the way -- so, Paul Allen's been missing. His family reports it to the police, Detective Kimble is investigating. Paul Allen's family discovers all the bodies and what have you at his apartment. Not knowing where he is, they assume, "Paul is a murderer. He has bodies all over his apartment. We have to clean this up and hide it from anyone." Boom. Apartment cleaned, bodies removed, things covered up, detective paid off, Patrick gets away with it all. Paul Allen's family assumed he did it and could not/would not allow that information to be leaked, and made everything disappear.
Well, Patrick himself says it -- he "is a pretty sick guy." While I believe the murders are real, I think he is definitely and obviously hallucinating what the ATM machine is saying. That doesn't mean that everything else is imaginary though. You know how you think you see something, but in fact it wasn't what you thought at all? It doesn't mean you didn't see anything, it just means you didn't see it accurately. Now imagine you're absolutely psychotic and on all kinds of psychotropic drugs. There's no telling WHAT kinds of things your ATM is going to be asking you to do, especially if you missed a dose of your meds that day. Have you read the book? There's a chapter in there where he's just going absolutely nutty on the streets of New York while he's trying to shop. He shoplifts a ham, walks into a random building and shoves the food in his face while the doorman watches. He's utterly insane. (Did you know he likes to dissect girls?)
Anyway, I digress. My point is, the ending sequence is signifying his total and complete mental breakdown. "My mask of sanity is slipping." Before, he was able to calmly and cold-bloodedly kill and then go on about his normal routine. But that act -- that mask -- had run out. He totally and completely lost it."
02. "Patrick's condition is unstable, as was made clear at various points throughout the movie. "My blood lust is no longer relegated to the night, it's spilling over into the daytime," etc. Anyway, it is at the end that Patrick sees the "feed me the cat" message from the ATM. His world is falling apart along with his sanity. I think it is more than believable that he did hallucinate the ATM reading and nothing else.
The murders were real. If not, then why make the movie? It is obviously social commentary about the yuppie 80s. How would that work if the whole thing was imagined?"
--------------------------------...
Back to myself, Ellis himself has said, "there would be no point to this book if the murders were imaginary". However, I haven't heard anything about the film in this sense. So it could be true that the murders in the film are not real, especially with the clues and drugs.
- emokid0
he was bateman and did kill all those people. the underlying theme was greed and selfishness. everyone was so obsessed with their own lives that they were willing to ignore everything bateman was doing.
starting from the guy who sees bateman drag a dead body with the trail of blood and instead he asks where bateman got that wonderful bag from.
the woman who owned the apartment got rid of the bodies so she could sell the apartment without any problems. the lawyer admits to seeing paul allen in london because he just wanted to be associated with paul allen.
there were clues through out about how no one really paid attention to what bateman had to say. he says he is into murders and executions and the woman at the bar assumes he said mergers and acquisitions. while talking to his fiance, bateman says he has a need to engage in homicidal behaviour on a massive scale and she overlooks that part as well.
right in the beginning bateman says he feels as though he simply doesn't exist. i interpreted that as living in a materialistic world where people are too self obsessed (and high) to acknowledge some one else's existence. it was a story about greed making people blind to the most obvious of things, however, it is all still open to interpretation.
as you can tell, i've watched the movie numerous times.
- mrdobolina0
Paul Allen has mistaken me for this dickhead Marcus Halberstram. It seems logical because Marcus also works at P&P and in fact does the same exact thing I do and he also has a penchant for Valentino suits and Oliver Peoples glasses. Marcus and I even go to the same barber, although I have a slightly better haircut.
- e-pill0
i read the book many times and i never thought he never commited any of those crimes. in the 1980s in nyc that all seems so possible as so many people were too stuck in their own bs to even see any truths around them where in his circles of life tunnel vision which all new yorks have seems to be extra strong amongst him and his friends.
this is not an exit...
- Jaline0
In the book = he did commit the crimes
In the film = he didn't.
- Jaline0
starting from the guy who sees bateman drag a dead body with the trail of blood and instead he asks where bateman got that wonderful bag from.
the woman who owned the apartment got rid of the bodies so she could sell the apartment without any problems. the lawyer admits to seeing paul allen in london because he just wanted to be associated with paul allen.
there were clues through out about how no one really paid attention to what bateman had to say. he says he is into murders and executions and the woman at the bar assumes he said mergers and acquisitions. while talking to his fiance, bateman says he has a need to engage in homicidal behaviour on a massive scale and she overlooks that part as well.
right in the beginning bateman says he feels as though he simply doesn't exist. i interpreted that as living in a materialistic world where people are too self obsessed (and high) to acknowledge some one else's existence. it was a story about greed making people blind to the most obvious of things, however, it is all still open to interpretation.
as you can tell, i've watched the movie numerous times.
emokid
(Sep 11 07, 14:51)You have good points, but I still don't believe people would actually do what you mentioned in the first two paragraphs. It seems unlikely. But I guess this story isn't about "making sense" or "common sense"...
- TResudek0
Don't just look at it - eat it!
- emokid0
let's look deeper into the paul allen case. bateman recorded a message on allen's answering machine saying that he was going to london. then all of a sudden people started seeing allen in london. people just wanted to be associated with the cool kids and they'd go to any extent to do that.
of course the movie is not about common sense. things were exaggerated to make a point.
- Jaline0
It's true, but I think there are more things going against that point. You could go either way with this.
- mrdobolina0
I'm trying to listen to the new Robert Palmer tape, but Evelyn, my supposed fiancée, keeps buzzing in my ear.