b. he doesn't have clear psychological boundary function because that's how psychotics see the world?
For someone with psychosis, the separation between reality and what is made up is extremely thin, and they make up reality in their mind...the fact that the characters throughout the movie who are in touch with reality think he's kind of 'off', suggests perhaps he's just someone with psychosis in a material world
2. On the other hand, if you see it from the perspective of a "psychosis" -- it's even MORE fucked up cause the whole movie, if you backtrack, WAS FROM INSIDE THE MIND OF A PSYCHOTIC with brief moments of reality -- and then the ending he kind of gets a window into reality when the lawyer confronts him and he kind of has a moment of clarity upon hearing Paul Allan is alive...but what happens in the end when he sits back down? Right back to psychosis.
so ur saying it was all in his mind?? he didnt really kill him?? I kinda got that dream like impression when he shot the door man and janitor b4 he called his lawyer??
The movie seems to go from inside his mind to outside his mind.
I.e. I think the part where the secretary reads his drawings book is real.
The part where the lawyer tells him he had dinner with Paul Allen...real.
The part, just seconds before, where the lawyers starts saying things like "Bateman is such a boring spineless lightweight..." etc...He's having a psychosis moment. Never happened
The movie seems to have about 8 moments that 'really happened'
It's neat how you can see the movie from 2 perspectives:
1. If you see it as a satire, then all the youtube comments about it being a satire make sense (i.e. everyone so self centered and materialistic they basically let him get away with murder and company cleaning out the bodies cause his dad owned the company, satire of everyone being a 'suite' and everyone being a Vice President [during the cards scene] etc etc etc)
well...when he was shooting at the police car and it exploded and he had a sort of expression on his face like he didnt expect it to happen kinda hints that it never happend at all...i mean firing a glock at a police car does not cause the car to explode =\
i think the dad was the owner of the place bateman was working at... so he didnt have to work there but he did.his whole life he didnt know what he wanted but did whatever to "fit in" if people thought he was something hed just let it be. your suppose to end it... you can think if he killed people or not. i personally think he did...
ye hes so twisted that everything you saw happen didnt actually happen it was all just played in his head and he drew it out on that booklet of his =O
It's up to interpretation. There are several other ideas that have been put fourth, especially with regards to the book which hints at a large number of different things that the film doesn't.
The idea is especially hilighted by the people constantly using the wrong names, the idea of mistaken identity and all. It may be that Bateman's lawyer thought he had dinner with Paul but got the names confused. The fact that the woman sees all Bateman's drawings implies it did, whereas there being nothing in the apartment in the previous scene implies it didn't. He could have very well imagined it all.
ffs i jus looked at 1 of these comments and i can tell some pricks ave startd sayin shit on religion or sumthin stfu how anything u ppl r sayin has sumthing about this film s beond me jus watch the vid and stfu simple as cus beleve it or not its not wat ur sayin thts pissin ppl off its the fact ur fking saying it
Wow all you guys arguing over whether Asian countries are individualistic? What does individualistic mean to you? it probably means different things to different people, so shut up.
However i think all u morons should STFU and watch the movie only, commentating on the movie itself and not sprout shit without a clear understanding what you are trying to deliver!.... like in my last post I was taken aback by that cocksucker who said Asian countries are individualistic which is ofcourse the biggest swearword I have ever heard....
what am i trying to convey ???
PLZ FOR THE LOVE OF CHRIST STFU AND WATCH THE MOVIE! thanQ amen!
HE GOT AWAY WITH IT?! WTF?! if he killed "paul allen" but the other guy had lunch with him ten days ago then who was the real guy he killed? this was a good movie with a twisted ending, usually the crazy dude gets caughts except for in Mr.Brooks.
The book as well as the movie offers to us to decide if the crimes happened or not, and it also creates a sense of confusion as the characters tend to take one person for another, there are misunderstandings all the time, so that makes the end even more twisted.
i know what you mean, me too. but my dad said that when it comes to our house cuz we're renting it, he's gonna make me leave the room during like sex scenes. but other than that, i can see it. :)
this movie is a total mind fuck, very cool movie, if you like this check out identity with ray liota and that cusack dude, thats kind of like this an its a great movie i think
That the internal world simply didn't matter at all. The external world is all that matters. How we react with people, what car we are driving, what clothes we are wearing and what we represent. It doesn't matter what Bateman thinks about himself and about the murders, but what the world around him recieves. And all they recieve is his representation.
The beautiful line: "I'm not really hungry, but I'd like to have a reservation some place." sums it all up.
Well said. It doesn't really matter whether he committed the murders or not. The point of the film was yuppie culture, and it's indifference and vain materialism.
And indifference is stated throughout the film. Van Patten's line like you said, people mistaking Bateman for someone else, Bateman wanting to hold an unnecessary job for the sole purpose of fitting in, etc.
Better reservations, clothing, apartment, haircut, everyone cheating on each other, etc is brought up all along.
I agree that the film isn't alluding that he imagined all the murders. And I also think, to a further extend, that it simply doesn't matter which murders were commited or were just in his imagination. To me, the book and the movie both make one clear point: indifference. And that indifference reached an apparent peak in the 80s Yuppie culture. That the internal world, internal thoughts, internal delusions came down to a vague projection of ourselves, dissolving in an instant.
he killed every1,,,,,was 1 lucky summabitch to get away with it too....... his lawyer had an mistaken identity just like Paul Allen thought that Patrick was Marcus Albastran in the beginning '''' all opinion aside MASTERPIECE
I think youve gotta come from the perspective that he didnt really kill all, if any of those people. The progression from the beginning, making sly threatening comments to what he perceived at the end, graphic murders I think shows more the degeneration of his mental state, that to him his threats became acts.. After he confessed, maybe that was the sign of it all going away, as white as the walls in the apartment.. However for him he couldnt ever break free from it... Its open to interpretation
Amazig movie! unless you've read the book. In this case,then it's just average. It fails to follow the linear story line of the book which highlights his gradual mental break down and the fact that he's a yuppie insecure bipolar psycho serial killer. The only thing that saves it is the casting of Bale who portrays Bateman perfectly. More gore wouldn't have hurt either. And yes he commited all those murders, his trillionaire Dad just covered it all up
Uh? It doesn't allude towards his murders being covered up in neither the movie nor the book. Evidence in both the book and the movie point towards it being all in his head.
Well AS is open towards interpretation, that's for certain.
The problem I have with things in the book is that the book even more heavily states his deteriorating sanity. If you take something like being robbed by the taxi driver as a real event, then you have to accept the possibility of the donut being interviewed on TV as real.
For me it's the other way around. Since Bateman's sanity is questionable by the end of the book it only makes it more probable that he fantasized those murders.
I read almost all the comments and i still dont get it. I say kidnap the director of this film hold him on gun point and force him to explain the ending.
It is a good "mirror" on the whole Wall Street, tech bubble, hedonistic, greedy mindset of the 80's, 90's, whatever. Goldman Sachs pre 2008. It doesn't "say" anything {because I've reached a point where I don't think anything says anything} per se but captures the "mood" and "feel" of the whole self absorbed, impersonal, cold, nature of these people as well as anything I've seen. It is a good movie in that way I suppose. Certainly alot more interesting than 90% of the tripe you see.
The point is not if it's real or not, the point is it's real to him. He states that he doesn't care about anyone else, so he's only telling this for himself
Movie has a similar ending to Fight Club. In the end, he was basically making up an alter ego and imagining things he did, but in the end, the audience doesn't really know if he committed those things or not. In Fight Club, he did commit those things, in American Psycho, we aren't sure.
i feel like the batemans lawyer actually covered all the bodies and disposed of them and then concield all the evidence that bateman had done those deeds and thats what really confused bateman that he had gotten a new start to live as a human being and not to be just a psychopathic because he portrays all of the traits of a true psychopath so maybw now he can be truly human.
well nope the lawyer didnt covered all the bodies, cleaned the blooded, disposed of the blowed up police car, noooooo lol and you cant...just wake up a morning decide to stop behing a psychopath and start all over, the same way you cant wake up a morning and decide to be...cured from aids or any other illness
didnt you read my post xD lol, the author left it that way, he left you in confusion, you arent supposed to know if he killed them or not, the fact that he leaves that detail vague is a way to tell you that it has no importance, the only thing that mathers is what is outside, his posessions, his apperance. this movie was meant to express an idea, a critic, this isnt a dumbed out and pointless holywood movie filled with CGI and special effects.
it was meant to be this way, the confusion they inject portrays a materialist individual without any real self identity and thats why some people mistake him for someone else. His clothes, his haircut, his glasses, pants brand, car, business cards, posessions is what represents him and thats why no one seems to "care" about the killing, wether that individual is a delusional scyzophrenic or not dosent mather. the fact that we are left without really knowing if he killed or not tells us that it
tells us that it is not what mathers even if he did kill: "this confession has meant nothing". this is a critic of american society, therefore the title american psycho. This movie is simply brilliant. English is my 4th language so i know its bad cause i dont feel like spell checking on youtube, so i apologize for that. but yeah great movie :)
I'm kinda upset that I'm basically JUST discovering him.
This movie is really good, and I have the uncut version ;which I'm a little hesitant on watching. I haven't read the book yet, but is the movie too different than the book?
I think that the real estate agent cleaned it all up in order to sell the expensive condo. When she confronts Bateman she tells him "not to come back" because she realizes that he is the one that killed all those people and she doesn't want him messing up her sale.
yeh good point but still as if she wouldn't tell the police and she could keep it on the low down so the apartment is still good... i really dont think she would have cleaned up all those bodies and blood
People are always mistaking one another in this movie. Paul Allen thought he was Halberstam and his lawyer thought he was Davis. The lawyer also had lunch with someone in London who he thought was Paul Allen but wasn't.
Bateman actually did kill all of those people. The punchline of the movie is that no one cared or would make any connections.
I'd rather have no friends than his friends. Money is such a frivolous item underneath all of the hype and basic necessity. They told us themselves they don't value personality in women, only looks. Which means their relationships are horrid and unfulfilling. They don't respect one another, only the facades they hold and their societal prestige. They're in constant competition. Whether they admit or not, all of them are sick. Bateman was just the most salient, most clinical of them.
Little parts at the beginning of this video (and part 9) are missing, I think. He calls Jean a dumb bitch and screams "just say no!" Haha. I die every time.
in the scean were he kills the girl with the chainsaw why is he wearing white sneekers and no cloths? whats the point? and how does he kill Elizabeth? i <3 Christian Bale
Your wrong too, the movie sypnosis i saw said "The reader is left to wonder whether any of the crimes depicted in the novel actually happened, or simply were the figments of a delusional psychotic." So we can't be sure
Really good film, he's blatently just a psychopath, who hasn't killed anyone and is just imagining things, or either his social group, who constantly mix each other up, and bask in their own vanity, couldn't care less? I mean throughout he's like "I like to disect girls, I am insane" and them just laughing. And then him telling that bitch "I want to fit in" Makes him seem like he's begging for attention. And to backup the mixing up of people point (Remember what the Detective said about London)
the author of the book said that the murders are real. in the movie commentary, the director said that it was probably a mistake on her part that she left the film with such an ambiguous ending, that her intention too, was to portray murders as real. bateman's lawyer claims he's seen paul allen in london. but it probably wasn't paul allen at all, just some other yuppy guy. they don't even recognize each other, it's used to emphasise the emptiness and ridiculousness of their society.
As far as I remember, the women who got killed by the chain saw kicked into bateman's face and the next day bateman's girlfriend adverted (right word? xD) him to his wound on his lips so maybe he really did it?
I think its open to interpretation whether he really killed them or not. The feeling I got was that he did and I think its a much more powerful ending if the murders were real and not imagined.
Oops, I meant to type desensitization, not "desentization."
It was interesting to see that red Exit sign in the background as that blonde prostitute ran round n' round (as if in a maze), looking for an escape she couldn't find. Yet in the book Bateman was the one staring at a sign, "This is not an Exit." Those women, including Jean, were a personification of Bateman's inner emotional turmoil. It's sad that "...even after admitting..." his problem, "...there is no catharsis."
Indeed, it was all his imagination. The character Bateman symbolizes the Yuppie culture: shallow (portrayed by the motif of numberous name misidentifications; same designer suits, same hair, same VP title, even business-card competition; peeling off that facial-care mask; the contrast when he exchanged deep questions w/ Jean @ his apartment); depersonalization ("....I simply am not there."); & desentization (exemplified via his "murders").
His killings were all in his imagination. When Ronald Regan was giving speech, he thinks about how different people can be in the inside. It shows how people can be looking innocent and pure on the outside, they are actually evil and even murderous.
Pretty clever film, I'm sure it's an exploration of his mentality, and there may be some sort of message about what is and isn't real for the insane at the end. Very enjoyable, despite being incredibly disturbing.
I think Bateman confused someone else as being Allen, because the rich elite can't tell the difference between one another. When Bateman is confused to be Marcus, he questions his own identity. He has no idea about right and wrong so in this sense, he is completely desensitized, killing the weak and powerless to justify his own wealth. Because of his high authority, he cannot be punished, which is why his confession means nothing, because no one controls him so he is uncontrollable.
as for the killings, not all of them actually happened. For example the last ones where he killed a police officer then destroyed 2 cop cars. You would think that the cops would pursude what happened there, also the killing of that hooker, he had blood all over him! All her screaming wouldv'e alearted someone and all the blood everywhere would have atracted attention surely!
From what i gather there are three possible situations:
1) He infact did kill the people and his lawer was wrong,
2) He was crazy and only thought he killed those people.
3) He did infact kill the people, however some external force is stopping him getting any punishment ie. any satisfaction. He feels he needs to kill, but is never stopped so must proceed to kill...
not so sure about the last one what it's what came to me after hearing his speech...would be nice to get some feedback :)
Judging from the book and this, it's a comment on the shallowness of the 80's. Did you notice how no one could keep everyone else's names straight? Everyone is shallow and they except everyone else, including Bateman to be just as shallow (hence their perception that he's just trying to be funny).
They are always confusing each other for different people, so I think Jared Leto's character was pretending to be Paul Allen just like Bateman was pretending to be Marcus.
ok i just finished watchin this movie this is what i think, i think he imagined what he wanted to happen, he imagined what would happen if he killed all those ppl. the scene with the detective i think it was all imagination i think he created it after he killed paul....i dont wanna wright my whole shit but tell me what you guys think
I noticed that the woman in the end that was selling the apartment had a way about her that says to me, this apartment is worth money you ass hole, don't you dare ruin this sale for me. You just get the fuck out of here and I won't say a word. Wink wink.
Ok. Last comment. It's all explainable as having actually happened except for:
1. The murdered prostitute and lack of subsequent investigation.
2. The death of the cops.
We know the lawyer is unreliable, so we can disregard his statements. He mixes people up the way the rest of them do. But it doesn't seem possible that he commited the 2 acts of violence listed above.
O! yes it;s true.. :)
kapastb 2 years ago
does that mean his lawyer is just gunna lie and not care? there all psycho, is that the finale??
ssssssspps 2 years ago
Oh Bale, I love him
gilanin 2 years ago
5:54 - 6:01
Pmsl
TCMfan2kii10 2 years ago 2
what deos pms mean?
sry I really don't know :[
GrolendjijusAurora 2 years ago
thanks for the upload.
FesterCrust 2 years ago
That would probably explain the title...
American > the whole materialistic aspect of the movie
Psycho > the whole psychosis part of the movie
Mix the two -- and you can see on a spectrum...
American/Satire movie|-------------------|Psycho/Inside the mind of a psychotic/How a psychotic sees the world
That seems to be why all the perspectives people are posting below are correct.
leverageeverything 2 years ago
The question is, which is more likely:
a. no one notices or ignores him?
or
b. he doesn't have clear psychological boundary function because that's how psychotics see the world?
For someone with psychosis, the separation between reality and what is made up is extremely thin, and they make up reality in their mind...the fact that the characters throughout the movie who are in touch with reality think he's kind of 'off', suggests perhaps he's just someone with psychosis in a material world
leverageeverything 2 years ago
2. On the other hand, if you see it from the perspective of a "psychosis" -- it's even MORE fucked up cause the whole movie, if you backtrack, WAS FROM INSIDE THE MIND OF A PSYCHOTIC with brief moments of reality -- and then the ending he kind of gets a window into reality when the lawyer confronts him and he kind of has a moment of clarity upon hearing Paul Allan is alive...but what happens in the end when he sits back down? Right back to psychosis.
leverageeverything 2 years ago
so ur saying it was all in his mind?? he didnt really kill him?? I kinda got that dream like impression when he shot the door man and janitor b4 he called his lawyer??
ssssssspps 2 years ago
It depends how you want to see the movie.
The movie seems to go from inside his mind to outside his mind.
I.e. I think the part where the secretary reads his drawings book is real.
The part where the lawyer tells him he had dinner with Paul Allen...real.
The part, just seconds before, where the lawyers starts saying things like "Bateman is such a boring spineless lightweight..." etc...He's having a psychosis moment. Never happened
The movie seems to have about 8 moments that 'really happened'
leverageeverything 2 years ago
It's neat how you can see the movie from 2 perspectives:
1. If you see it as a satire, then all the youtube comments about it being a satire make sense (i.e. everyone so self centered and materialistic they basically let him get away with murder and company cleaning out the bodies cause his dad owned the company, satire of everyone being a 'suite' and everyone being a Vice President [during the cards scene] etc etc etc)
leverageeverything 2 years ago
well...when he was shooting at the police car and it exploded and he had a sort of expression on his face like he didnt expect it to happen kinda hints that it never happend at all...i mean firing a glock at a police car does not cause the car to explode =\
FordyJr123 2 years ago
if he really did the crimes then he would have been arrested when all the cops were outside his appartment. so he didnt do them.
disasterblast 2 years ago
Bruce Wayne is MESSED on this one! lol!
conqueror333 2 years ago
i think the dad was the owner of the place bateman was working at... so he didnt have to work there but he did.his whole life he didnt know what he wanted but did whatever to "fit in" if people thought he was something hed just let it be. your suppose to end it... you can think if he killed people or not. i personally think he did...
8133108 2 years ago
lol "I killed paul allen, and i liked it"
xiomilolo 2 years ago
ye hes so twisted that everything you saw happen didnt actually happen it was all just played in his head and he drew it out on that booklet of his =O
bigyin66 2 years ago 4
did he imagine doing all those crimes?
panjshir14 2 years ago
It's up to interpretation. There are several other ideas that have been put fourth, especially with regards to the book which hints at a large number of different things that the film doesn't.
oliver12345678910908 2 years ago
The idea is especially hilighted by the people constantly using the wrong names, the idea of mistaken identity and all. It may be that Bateman's lawyer thought he had dinner with Paul but got the names confused. The fact that the woman sees all Bateman's drawings implies it did, whereas there being nothing in the apartment in the previous scene implies it didn't. He could have very well imagined it all.
oliver12345678910908 2 years ago
stupid bastard
primojet 2 years ago
ffs i jus looked at 1 of these comments and i can tell some pricks ave startd sayin shit on religion or sumthin stfu how anything u ppl r sayin has sumthing about this film s beond me jus watch the vid and stfu simple as cus beleve it or not its not wat ur sayin thts pissin ppl off its the fact ur fking saying it
ItDuz 2 years ago
Comment removed
Meloman0001 2 years ago
my brain hurts.
Dune1884 2 years ago 2
Wow all you guys arguing over whether Asian countries are individualistic? What does individualistic mean to you? it probably means different things to different people, so shut up.
Garren16 2 years ago
[IMPORTANT]
THANX OP FOR THE VID I ENJOYED IT!!
However i think all u morons should STFU and watch the movie only, commentating on the movie itself and not sprout shit without a clear understanding what you are trying to deliver!.... like in my last post I was taken aback by that cocksucker who said Asian countries are individualistic which is ofcourse the biggest swearword I have ever heard....
what am i trying to convey ???
PLZ FOR THE LOVE OF CHRIST STFU AND WATCH THE MOVIE! thanQ amen!
IOdINl 2 years ago 4
Amen! Well-said!
FiberFinger 2 years ago
arent asian countries collectivist cultures?
owiseone1 2 years ago
Jesus exist = "false"
If jesus exist = "true" then proof outside the bible must be presented.
PhreakStep 2 years ago
yes!!!!
damien345 2 years ago
Dope movie.
Hes saying he obviously hasnt figured it out himself but it doesnt matter. Hes a prisoner of his own twisted logic.
And no, the crimes didnt happen.
Ferkoff45 2 years ago
Comment removed
mrstilton1 2 years ago
The point is, he's so twisted, we don't know if the crimes even happened or if it's all in his head
LadyVader33 2 years ago 2
I'd take that a step further and say the point is that the crimes were all in his head.
bananas1220 2 years ago
HE GOT AWAY WITH IT?! WTF?! if he killed "paul allen" but the other guy had lunch with him ten days ago then who was the real guy he killed? this was a good movie with a twisted ending, usually the crazy dude gets caughts except for in Mr.Brooks.
i800allycat 2 years ago 3
The book as well as the movie offers to us to decide if the crimes happened or not, and it also creates a sense of confusion as the characters tend to take one person for another, there are misunderstandings all the time, so that makes the end even more twisted.
missmephistopheles 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
GODDAMN..... bale at his bloody best... i mean he wud have done justice to the joker's character had he been given it.....
wierdash 3 years ago 2
BRILLIANT! omg. i have to see this movie
julebells 3 years ago
i know what you mean, me too. but my dad said that when it comes to our house cuz we're renting it, he's gonna make me leave the room during like sex scenes. but other than that, i can see it. :)
McqueenKid5 3 years ago
thanks for posting this movie
irritatetheidiot 3 years ago
HOLY shit - Bale like you've never seen him before!
Totally insane shit - LOVED IT!
Thanks for posting!
Railroadersbrat 3 years ago 2
this movie is a total mind fuck, very cool movie, if you like this check out identity with ray liota and that cusack dude, thats kind of like this an its a great movie i think
joker52mlb 3 years ago
Whether or not he committed the murders or not... he's made it clear in his concluding thoughts that he's about to kill...
sirmortrainey 3 years ago
Whether or not her committed the murders or not? Looks like you're murdering the English language.
bfoolish2006 3 years ago
haha.
nat11311 2 years ago
Wait, he told the copat the start, "Was there any fingerprints" and all this other stuff which the cop should have picked up :S:S:S:s:S
Ctiraboschi 3 years ago
Its possible that the only one that could have been real was when he was with jean.
MegaRomik 3 years ago
I can see where Katy Perry got her inspiration from...
"I killed Paul Allen and I like it"
cam123webb 3 years ago 5
the taste of his cherry brains?
Cssfiend 3 years ago 4
what?so was he just thinking about doing all this is that what the drawing book was about.kinda had a little fight klub twist
702turd 3 years ago 2
weird movie...
XP1245 3 years ago
So it was all a hallucination? or a dream? was it like the other psycho movies, when the antagonist/protagonist turns out to be schizophrenic?
balecraigpattinson07 3 years ago
goddamn bale is a good acter
dopebird17 3 years ago
you spelled actor wrong you fucking idiot
TheDancingRomeo 3 years ago
calm down there Baterman
cashway0420 3 years ago
That the internal world simply didn't matter at all. The external world is all that matters. How we react with people, what car we are driving, what clothes we are wearing and what we represent. It doesn't matter what Bateman thinks about himself and about the murders, but what the world around him recieves. And all they recieve is his representation.
The beautiful line: "I'm not really hungry, but I'd like to have a reservation some place." sums it all up.
PerfectPresence 3 years ago 3
Well said. It doesn't really matter whether he committed the murders or not. The point of the film was yuppie culture, and it's indifference and vain materialism.
And indifference is stated throughout the film. Van Patten's line like you said, people mistaking Bateman for someone else, Bateman wanting to hold an unnecessary job for the sole purpose of fitting in, etc.
Better reservations, clothing, apartment, haircut, everyone cheating on each other, etc is brought up all along.
Sportsmanshipfactory 3 years ago
I agree that the film isn't alluding that he imagined all the murders. And I also think, to a further extend, that it simply doesn't matter which murders were commited or were just in his imagination. To me, the book and the movie both make one clear point: indifference. And that indifference reached an apparent peak in the 80s Yuppie culture. That the internal world, internal thoughts, internal delusions came down to a vague projection of ourselves, dissolving in an instant.
PerfectPresence 3 years ago 2
this movie is brilliant and so is the book and i find it very interesting reading the comments and getting other people's perspectives on the ending.
DelightfullyLiberal 3 years ago
it was all in his head people
he made it all up and at the end thats why the guy said he had dinner with paul allen in london
korny1684 3 years ago
he killed every1,,,,,was 1 lucky summabitch to get away with it too....... his lawyer had an mistaken identity just like Paul Allen thought that Patrick was Marcus Albastran in the beginning '''' all opinion aside MASTERPIECE
aman7211 3 years ago
I dont get it..
So did he actually kill all them people? or was it in his head? or somthing?
I dont undertsnad! : |
Moderm101 3 years ago
I think youve gotta come from the perspective that he didnt really kill all, if any of those people. The progression from the beginning, making sly threatening comments to what he perceived at the end, graphic murders I think shows more the degeneration of his mental state, that to him his threats became acts.. After he confessed, maybe that was the sign of it all going away, as white as the walls in the apartment.. However for him he couldnt ever break free from it... Its open to interpretation
tomwuk1 3 years ago
Amazig movie! unless you've read the book. In this case,then it's just average. It fails to follow the linear story line of the book which highlights his gradual mental break down and the fact that he's a yuppie insecure bipolar psycho serial killer. The only thing that saves it is the casting of Bale who portrays Bateman perfectly. More gore wouldn't have hurt either. And yes he commited all those murders, his trillionaire Dad just covered it all up
greglephoenix 3 years ago
Uh? It doesn't allude towards his murders being covered up in neither the movie nor the book. Evidence in both the book and the movie point towards it being all in his head.
Sportsmanshipfactory 3 years ago
you're right, the movie doesn't allude towards his murders being covered up
but it's a plausible explanation
because believing that all the murders were in his head is a complete fallacy.
Notice the estate agent's behaviour around him, she obviously knows something.
In the book he gets robbed at gun point by a taxi driver who claims he killed "solly" and theirs wanted pictures of Bateman downtown.
Believing that he didn't commit any of these crimes completely eludes the point of the book
greglephoenix 3 years ago
Well AS is open towards interpretation, that's for certain.
The problem I have with things in the book is that the book even more heavily states his deteriorating sanity. If you take something like being robbed by the taxi driver as a real event, then you have to accept the possibility of the donut being interviewed on TV as real.
For me it's the other way around. Since Bateman's sanity is questionable by the end of the book it only makes it more probable that he fantasized those murders.
Sportsmanshipfactory 3 years ago
to find out the true meaning of this i say we all go on murderous rampages. i've already started. . . can anyone better 10!!!!!!! lol only kiddin
johnnyringrong 3 years ago
whats his name in the end
6thizzel 3 years ago
in the book he always hallucinates and even blacks out alot so they probably would b in his head
sasquatchfiddlestick 3 years ago
i agree with koldergut
sasquatchfiddlestick 3 years ago
I read almost all the comments and i still dont get it. I say kidnap the director of this film hold him on gun point and force him to explain the ending.
koldergut 3 years ago 6
hahahahah ..lets do it
666lordbyron666 3 years ago 2
The ending is meant to be ambiguous, just like the ending of the book.
andyB58 3 years ago
I don't think so - he transported some corpses and had to clear his clothes, the "bitch" won't also come with him the second time.
I think his surround makes the same and they protect each other. At least this is meant metaphorical. But maybe I/we should read the book :-p
zyklos 3 years ago
the killings were his imagination of what he wanted to do. the drawing on the notebook was his release or something.
darphinparis 3 years ago
It is a good "mirror" on the whole Wall Street, tech bubble, hedonistic, greedy mindset of the 80's, 90's, whatever. Goldman Sachs pre 2008. It doesn't "say" anything {because I've reached a point where I don't think anything says anything} per se but captures the "mood" and "feel" of the whole self absorbed, impersonal, cold, nature of these people as well as anything I've seen. It is a good movie in that way I suppose. Certainly alot more interesting than 90% of the tripe you see.
kentucy9999 3 years ago 2
The point is not if it's real or not, the point is it's real to him. He states that he doesn't care about anyone else, so he's only telling this for himself
moviepal01 3 years ago
Movie has a similar ending to Fight Club. In the end, he was basically making up an alter ego and imagining things he did, but in the end, the audience doesn't really know if he committed those things or not. In Fight Club, he did commit those things, in American Psycho, we aren't sure.
00SoldierofFortune00 3 years ago
i feel like the batemans lawyer actually covered all the bodies and disposed of them and then concield all the evidence that bateman had done those deeds and thats what really confused bateman that he had gotten a new start to live as a human being and not to be just a psychopathic because he portrays all of the traits of a true psychopath so maybw now he can be truly human.
crazypants831 3 years ago
well nope the lawyer didnt covered all the bodies, cleaned the blooded, disposed of the blowed up police car, noooooo lol and you cant...just wake up a morning decide to stop behing a psychopath and start all over, the same way you cant wake up a morning and decide to be...cured from aids or any other illness
Pekeno201 3 years ago 7
Sooooo. Did he actually kill them or not? I'm confused.
lebbo88 3 years ago
didnt you read my post xD lol, the author left it that way, he left you in confusion, you arent supposed to know if he killed them or not, the fact that he leaves that detail vague is a way to tell you that it has no importance, the only thing that mathers is what is outside, his posessions, his apperance. this movie was meant to express an idea, a critic, this isnt a dumbed out and pointless holywood movie filled with CGI and special effects.
Pekeno201 3 years ago 3
Looks like he did not. Dreamed about doing stuff like that as you see we even drew pictures of it.
BentHenny 3 years ago
it was meant to be this way, the confusion they inject portrays a materialist individual without any real self identity and thats why some people mistake him for someone else. His clothes, his haircut, his glasses, pants brand, car, business cards, posessions is what represents him and thats why no one seems to "care" about the killing, wether that individual is a delusional scyzophrenic or not dosent mather. the fact that we are left without really knowing if he killed or not tells us that it
Pekeno201 3 years ago 4
tells us that it is not what mathers even if he did kill: "this confession has meant nothing". this is a critic of american society, therefore the title american psycho. This movie is simply brilliant. English is my 4th language so i know its bad cause i dont feel like spell checking on youtube, so i apologize for that. but yeah great movie :)
Pekeno201 3 years ago 4
Remember me of the Politicians, Lawyers, Businessmen, and these people that are on top of their game.
And we the average men have to look up to see their cold, hard selfless eyes
b07rivera 3 years ago
Wow the Whole Iran-Contra affair is so poingnant to this movie. But that was
nothing compared to the Fiasco G.W.Bush
has left us. The message at the end is
too disturbing to contemplate.
peymaania 3 years ago
You are too dumb to live.
rolinthor 3 years ago
Did you come up with all by yourself?
Somehow I doubt it!
peymaania 3 years ago
did he imagine all? or did he actually kill them? can anyone tell me the truth of the story? and why?
cherryfaris 3 years ago
Christian Bale is brilliant.
I'm kinda upset that I'm basically JUST discovering him.
This movie is really good, and I have the uncut version ;which I'm a little hesitant on watching. I haven't read the book yet, but is the movie too different than the book?
letitrock90 3 years ago
id watch the movie and read the book but dont judge them off each other there both good in there own way
elmochipshop 3 years ago
wer did all the bodies go plus pauls apartment???
elmochipshop 3 years ago
I think that the real estate agent cleaned it all up in order to sell the expensive condo. When she confronts Bateman she tells him "not to come back" because she realizes that he is the one that killed all those people and she doesn't want him messing up her sale.
quietearthMT 3 years ago
yeh good point but still as if she wouldn't tell the police and she could keep it on the low down so the apartment is still good... i really dont think she would have cleaned up all those bodies and blood
elmochipshop 3 years ago
so why did his lawyer call him Davids? and what he imagining all this , were did the bodies go?
lucas503 3 years ago
People are always mistaking one another in this movie. Paul Allen thought he was Halberstam and his lawyer thought he was Davis. The lawyer also had lunch with someone in London who he thought was Paul Allen but wasn't.
Bateman actually did kill all of those people. The punchline of the movie is that no one cared or would make any connections.
quietearthMT 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
this film was very disappointing. th ebook is total mayhem and this is just lame.
but i guess thats what happens when you let a woman direct.
but thnks for uploading
joyandian 3 years ago
No one, no one at all, can buy their way out of death.
zerntz 3 years ago
I really feel sorry for this guy...
DockT 3 years ago
I'd rather have no friends than his friends. Money is such a frivolous item underneath all of the hype and basic necessity. They told us themselves they don't value personality in women, only looks. Which means their relationships are horrid and unfulfilling. They don't respect one another, only the facades they hold and their societal prestige. They're in constant competition. Whether they admit or not, all of them are sick. Bateman was just the most salient, most clinical of them.
VastFortune 3 years ago 3
wow. thank you so much for posting the entire movie. that was good, but disturbing as hell.
heartyhoopz1184 3 years ago 2
Little parts at the beginning of this video (and part 9) are missing, I think. He calls Jean a dumb bitch and screams "just say no!" Haha. I die every time.
stopthistrain 3 years ago 3
in the scean were he kills the girl with the chainsaw why is he wearing white sneekers and no cloths? whats the point? and how does he kill Elizabeth? i <3 Christian Bale
drchasefreak15 3 years ago
He didn't kill anyone, it was all in his head.
acematthew 3 years ago
That's not correct at all...look up the movie info for yourself, no one cared that he killed all of those people
Maximus1Decimus 3 years ago
Your wrong too, the movie sypnosis i saw said "The reader is left to wonder whether any of the crimes depicted in the novel actually happened, or simply were the figments of a delusional psychotic." So we can't be sure
Englishkid1994 3 years ago 2
For all the ????? out there.
Him saying this confesion has ment nothing at the very ending does the trick for me.
Shjenkie 3 years ago
Who is Patrick Bateman?
Shjenkie 3 years ago
Really good film, he's blatently just a psychopath, who hasn't killed anyone and is just imagining things, or either his social group, who constantly mix each other up, and bask in their own vanity, couldn't care less? I mean throughout he's like "I like to disect girls, I am insane" and them just laughing. And then him telling that bitch "I want to fit in" Makes him seem like he's begging for attention. And to backup the mixing up of people point (Remember what the Detective said about London)
R3D00d 3 years ago
the author of the book said that the murders are real. in the movie commentary, the director said that it was probably a mistake on her part that she left the film with such an ambiguous ending, that her intention too, was to portray murders as real. bateman's lawyer claims he's seen paul allen in london. but it probably wasn't paul allen at all, just some other yuppy guy. they don't even recognize each other, it's used to emphasise the emptiness and ridiculousness of their society.
albaavis695 3 years ago 2
in the end hes just fuckin nuts in his brain :D
nice movie
bibabuwhatever 3 years ago
what tha fuck someone please explain!!
xxTHExxKLASxx 3 years ago
the film is cut short. after the dinner he goes back to his flat and sees all the people he shoot to be alive. its a bit like thw fight club ending.
eddthegreat125 3 years ago
So DID he kill anyone or NOT?
Sefardi123 3 years ago
Thank you for posting. That was a very psychological film
XxxQuanChixxX 3 years ago
but inside doesn't matter...
albaavis695 3 years ago
I am so confused! Did he or did he not commit those murders?
lkrachal 3 years ago
its open too interpretation, many think its about HOW many he killed, whereas others thinks its a case of if he killed at all or killed all of them.
FreeBeleiver 3 years ago
He didn´t kill anyone! The scene with the cops shows that!
freitasrosana 3 years ago
why does the cops scene shows he didnt kill anyone? thank u
rjmyy 3 years ago
Cool one brown eye and one blue.
XE0G 3 years ago
p bateman is so fucking cool
akoljrkdsf 3 years ago
...wot?
xXxflamingchickenxXx 3 years ago
the ending ruind the whole thing. the movie is soppost to be about a sociopathic serial killer. not a scitso.. GOD DAMN!
kaetzchenderliebe 3 years ago
I think he imagined the murders because it's what he wanted to happen. He's still insane though. He probably has some form of schizophrenia...
OR
He really did kill everyone and he's just the luckiest bastard on a psychotic break in the world.
nannysox 3 years ago 6
As far as I remember, the women who got killed by the chain saw kicked into bateman's face and the next day bateman's girlfriend adverted (right word? xD) him to his wound on his lips so maybe he really did it?
NasenStrumpf 3 years ago
I think its open to interpretation whether he really killed them or not. The feeling I got was that he did and I think its a much more powerful ending if the murders were real and not imagined.
Boobysoupy 3 years ago
i thought his lawyer was giving him an out by giving him a new name and mentioning london
shortinstature 3 years ago
thats a pretty good one actually...
FreeBeleiver 3 years ago
I've heard this book is really good. All the copies at my library were stolen.
MustBeEmo2 3 years ago
No, I don't either...
homewardbound909 3 years ago
i dont understand...
RobinTheBoyWonder2 3 years ago 2
the only real thing was his psycho pictured diary.
kvpusu11 3 years ago
Thats a Really Sad Movie. and how was THAT DUDE STILL ALIVE?!!! WTF?!!!!!
SlakeDragon 3 years ago
There is "no new knowledge [to be] extracted...," so he never got his emotional & spiritual resolution. His hell continues. Sad ending.
WongYung83 3 years ago 4
Oops, I meant to type desensitization, not "desentization."
It was interesting to see that red Exit sign in the background as that blonde prostitute ran round n' round (as if in a maze), looking for an escape she couldn't find. Yet in the book Bateman was the one staring at a sign, "This is not an Exit." Those women, including Jean, were a personification of Bateman's inner emotional turmoil. It's sad that "...even after admitting..." his problem, "...there is no catharsis."
WongYung83 3 years ago 2
Indeed, it was all his imagination. The character Bateman symbolizes the Yuppie culture: shallow (portrayed by the motif of numberous name misidentifications; same designer suits, same hair, same VP title, even business-card competition; peeling off that facial-care mask; the contrast when he exchanged deep questions w/ Jean @ his apartment); depersonalization ("....I simply am not there."); & desentization (exemplified via his "murders").
WongYung83 3 years ago
In the words of Robot Chicken. WHAT A TWEEST! lol.
keelathis1 3 years ago
huh???????????
fivealive2 3 years ago
lol the telephone is huge!!
Whasington911 3 years ago 2
was he imagining the killings?
icarrillos 3 years ago 3
he has a brown eye and green eye?
PEDROOLOGY 3 years ago
just the bat quality of the video.
funkitan 3 years ago
same bat quality. same bat website.
doryenc 3 years ago
i've seen this ending 4 times and, i still don't get it.
someone told me all the shit patrick did was all just a dream. i dont know if that true or not b/c i dont understand the last 20 min of the film.
CAR18MEN 3 years ago 2
His killings were all in his imagination. When Ronald Regan was giving speech, he thinks about how different people can be in the inside. It shows how people can be looking innocent and pure on the outside, they are actually evil and even murderous.
violinlova 3 years ago
just like me :P im really fucked up
akoljrkdsf 3 years ago
wow youre really cool!
chris371 3 years ago
an good film but a MUCH better book. The American Psycho novel is truely chilling
SaxamafoneGuy 3 years ago 2
Bateman or Batman??? lmao..he is both!hehahahahahaha!!! XD
sonya8888 3 years ago
not funny
jarheadts 3 years ago
Nasty notebook... It reminds me of the pictures of my sister which I drew while one was a child.
TwilightUnd3rground 3 years ago
Pretty clever film, I'm sure it's an exploration of his mentality, and there may be some sort of message about what is and isn't real for the insane at the end. Very enjoyable, despite being incredibly disturbing.
teh1337meister 3 years ago
I think Bateman confused someone else as being Allen, because the rich elite can't tell the difference between one another. When Bateman is confused to be Marcus, he questions his own identity. He has no idea about right and wrong so in this sense, he is completely desensitized, killing the weak and powerless to justify his own wealth. Because of his high authority, he cannot be punished, which is why his confession means nothing, because no one controls him so he is uncontrollable.
NathanEG 3 years ago 4
That's the best analysation comment here i'd say
as for the killings, not all of them actually happened. For example the last ones where he killed a police officer then destroyed 2 cop cars. You would think that the cops would pursude what happened there, also the killing of that hooker, he had blood all over him! All her screaming wouldv'e alearted someone and all the blood everywhere would have atracted attention surely!
nocternalD 3 years ago 2
no shit sherlock
Cssfiend 3 years ago
wow man thanks im blind and deaf but with your comment this movie makes perfect sense!
mxm892 3 years ago
lol you feel better after posting that stupid comment. Made your day hasan't it?
lol i was giving a very basic summary of this film. who said i was trying to be a genuis?
Some people don't get this film one bit
nocternalD 3 years ago
From what i gather there are three possible situations:
1) He infact did kill the people and his lawer was wrong,
2) He was crazy and only thought he killed those people.
3) He did infact kill the people, however some external force is stopping him getting any punishment ie. any satisfaction. He feels he needs to kill, but is never stopped so must proceed to kill...
not so sure about the last one what it's what came to me after hearing his speech...would be nice to get some feedback :)
popaw 3 years ago 2
Popaw, that last one actually doesn't seem so far fetched. like I said it's seems like a combination of a lot of things.
jenlyn77 3 years ago
HE WAS A PROPHET
MarkR00ney 3 years ago
Judging from the book and this, it's a comment on the shallowness of the 80's. Did you notice how no one could keep everyone else's names straight? Everyone is shallow and they except everyone else, including Bateman to be just as shallow (hence their perception that he's just trying to be funny).
sincerelytrace 3 years ago
I'm still confused.
kaisersosay2 3 years ago
me too how can there be more than one explanation?
ludogsonthemoon 3 years ago
It depends on what you think happened I guess. Either he was insane and did kill those people and that guy was wrong.
Or he was insane and didn't kill those people he only imagined he did. At least, I think that's what the two explanations are.
turnleftnow 3 years ago 2
Or it's a combination of both.
jenlyn77 3 years ago 2
They are always confusing each other for different people, so I think Jared Leto's character was pretending to be Paul Allen just like Bateman was pretending to be Marcus.
NathanEG 3 years ago
this movie made me mentally iillled
thekillerbean 3 years ago 3
ok i just finished watchin this movie this is what i think, i think he imagined what he wanted to happen, he imagined what would happen if he killed all those ppl. the scene with the detective i think it was all imagination i think he created it after he killed paul....i dont wanna wright my whole shit but tell me what you guys think
haben5r5432 3 years ago 2
I noticed that the woman in the end that was selling the apartment had a way about her that says to me, this apartment is worth money you ass hole, don't you dare ruin this sale for me. You just get the fuck out of here and I won't say a word. Wink wink.
jenlyn77 3 years ago 2
65 Films in my playlist, 4 anybody
who want 2 watch!
Outstep31 3 years ago
Thanks bro!
bhflint85 3 years ago
Ok. Last comment. It's all explainable as having actually happened except for:
1. The murdered prostitute and lack of subsequent investigation.
2. The death of the cops.
We know the lawyer is unreliable, so we can disregard his statements. He mixes people up the way the rest of them do. But it doesn't seem possible that he commited the 2 acts of violence listed above.
jhop9898 3 years ago 2