Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
In this Discussion
American Psycho: Discussion -Spoilers-
So I just finished the movie. Hopefully many of you have seen it, otherwise I'll be just as crazy as he was trying to keep this discussion alive.
Anyway. The ending. The way I see it, there are 2 or 3 main thoughts.
1. Bateman is batsh!t crazy, but never actually killed anyone. The images he drew in his calendar book aid this thoery, that he did nothing all day and drew up these crazy murders in his head, thus producing the images. We also never see the driver, nobody answers the doors when the hooker bangs on them as she runs from Bateman, and nobody comes out at the sound of the chainsaw. He actually makes the phonecall, but the lawyer states that he had lunch with one of Bateman's suggested victims.
2. Bateman is batsh!t crazy, and actually commited all the murders. He drew the images his secretary looked out from memory of his actions. When he is in the apartment being sold at the end, clearly the Paul guy had disappeared, as he was murdered by Bateman. Also, when the lawyer thinks the phonecall was a joke, he mistakingly calls Bateman by another mans name, showing that all the rich young CEO's were just as shallow as the next. The Paul guy even confuses Bateman for the same guy earlier in the movie. The lawyer just thinks he had lunch with Paul in London because he gets them all confused.
3. Bateman is batsh!t crazy, and like #1 fantasised all the murders, but only about people he had come accross. The hookers, because he had cheap sex with cheap women. The police, because he didn't like the detective snooping around. The Paul guy because he always confused him with other people. Etc. Etc.
Now, I have #2. bold because I find this one to be what I lean towards. HOWEVER, in the film, idea #1 or #3 seems right to me. In the film, he very easily could have dreamed it all up, and the lawyer and Paul actually did meet in London. He's still crazy, but only fantasized about the murders, possibly from actual people he knew. In the book, however, idea #2 is 100% correct, because in the book he paints on the wall of Paul's apartment in blood every time he kills people, saying "I'M BACK", and the detective sees it. I wish the film had added some sort of scene like that, to add to the fandom this film provides.
My opinions:
For the movie: Idea #3.
For the character/book: Idea #2.
Excellent film, and Christian Bale's best performance to date. Creeps you out. 9/10
Anyway. The ending. The way I see it, there are 2 or 3 main thoughts.
1. Bateman is batsh!t crazy, but never actually killed anyone. The images he drew in his calendar book aid this thoery, that he did nothing all day and drew up these crazy murders in his head, thus producing the images. We also never see the driver, nobody answers the doors when the hooker bangs on them as she runs from Bateman, and nobody comes out at the sound of the chainsaw. He actually makes the phonecall, but the lawyer states that he had lunch with one of Bateman's suggested victims.
2. Bateman is batsh!t crazy, and actually commited all the murders. He drew the images his secretary looked out from memory of his actions. When he is in the apartment being sold at the end, clearly the Paul guy had disappeared, as he was murdered by Bateman. Also, when the lawyer thinks the phonecall was a joke, he mistakingly calls Bateman by another mans name, showing that all the rich young CEO's were just as shallow as the next. The Paul guy even confuses Bateman for the same guy earlier in the movie. The lawyer just thinks he had lunch with Paul in London because he gets them all confused.
3. Bateman is batsh!t crazy, and like #1 fantasised all the murders, but only about people he had come accross. The hookers, because he had cheap sex with cheap women. The police, because he didn't like the detective snooping around. The Paul guy because he always confused him with other people. Etc. Etc.
Now, I have #2. bold because I find this one to be what I lean towards. HOWEVER, in the film, idea #1 or #3 seems right to me. In the film, he very easily could have dreamed it all up, and the lawyer and Paul actually did meet in London. He's still crazy, but only fantasized about the murders, possibly from actual people he knew. In the book, however, idea #2 is 100% correct, because in the book he paints on the wall of Paul's apartment in blood every time he kills people, saying "I'M BACK", and the detective sees it. I wish the film had added some sort of scene like that, to add to the fandom this film provides.
My opinions:
For the movie: Idea #3.
For the character/book: Idea #2.
Excellent film, and Christian Bale's best performance to date. Creeps you out. 9/10
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
It's an amazing film and many people cite this film as the movie that Bale just had to be batman but IMO I thought his performance made him the ideal joker. On fact, bales performance in AP outjokered Ledger.
That would have been interesting.
Him as Bateman is SO convincing. He's just on edge constantly. He just acts.. well.. psycho.
I'm one that usually hold judgement, but having heard a remake is being made - I am baffled. The 90s movie is a classic and no person could improve on Bale electryfying performance (Should have been nominated for Oscar)
great movie shame about the god awfull sequel.