American Psycho

I just saw this movie and thought it was great. Christian Bale truly is a great actor. But I was a little confused by the ending.

Spoiler:
Did Bateman kill all those people or not? Or is it so that he killed all of them exept his co-worker

look, the intention of the movie is exactly that, off course that anybody can have their opinion.

i saw the movie along time i think i remember well what happen but it´s difficul to explain when you can´t say much because We can´t reveal the end.

i do agree with that because i hate when somebody tells me the end of a movie

If you like the film you should read the book, it is a master piece.

Originally posted by Morridini
I just saw this movie and thought it was great. Christian Bale truly is a great actor. But I was a little confused by the ending.

Spoiler:
Did Bateman kill all those people or not? Or is it so that he killed all of them exept his co-worker

So if anyone know what actuallty happened, please tell me.

This film is pure quality and it shows some fine acting from Christian Bale!

You can interpret the ending in many different ways. There are many theories as to what the ending of the film actually means.

Spoiler:
One theory for example is that Bateman did not actually kill anyone, and it was all in his imagination.

Another theory, one that I believe in, is that everyone looks like each other, which is how Bateman got away with all the killings. Note how Paul Owen mistakes Bateman for Marcus Halberstram, and in the same scene, Paul Owen mistakes one of Bateman's friends (McDermott) for a "someone Baxter". Towards the end when Bateman goes on a killing spree he walks into the building and the guy behind the desk says "Burning the midnight oil, Mr. Smith?" All the guys that work at Pierce & Pierce look the same, dress the same and act the same. So when Bateman's lawyer says he saw Paul Owen in London, that could be because he mistook someone else for Paul Owen.

At the end even Bateman's lawyer didn't recognise him. He called Bateman "Davis". So this could add further proof to the theory that Bateman does not get caught for the killings because everyone looks and acts the same (except for Luis Carruthers, "the biggest dufus in the business"😉.

Dario Argento, I have not read the book but I have heard from someone that the cinematic version of American Psycho is probably the first time a film has outshone the book version of itself. Can you add any weight to this?

Sorry, posted the

Spoiler:
spoiler

Lets hope that. I realy liked your theory number two, it certainly explains a lot. I am going to read the book once I finish The Hunt For Red October.

man i´m so .......................... i didn´t know how the spoiler thing worked, now i can post much better.LOL

the book was just amazing. if you ever sitting on the shelf i recomend you buy it. if you have to thing twice then glance through the book and read the rat chapter, def one of the most disturbing words i have ever read.

i believe that the ending of the movie shows that all of it was fake. the movie is a jump in to the average american business man to see what he really thinks. a man trapped inside his everyday life who fantisizes of death and murder. and like all of Bret Easton Ellis books (the aurthor) they really take place in the 80's. a time where everthing had a pseudo face.

Great movie, but I was disappointed at the end. I like William Defoe as a detective and also Reese Whiterspoon as the future bride. The character of Christian Bale is very Narcisst and eccentric. I couldn't find him appealing, but at the same time he is the type of person that if you were to know about his true emotions, you won't like him at all.

I also like how business men are portrayed in this film. They have emotions, but they care more about their own benefit rather than working with others as a team. In some cases arrogance is very common on people who are succesful in life.

U Neek. I thought that your theory was pretty much explained in the movie. He definitely did the killings. To help varify it was the shit the called American Psycho 2 (just watched tonight). The girl meets Bateman at the beginning while he is still killing people. It was set up like Lizzy McGuire but with shitty filmed murder scenes. The end was at least a little intelligent but still not as good of an ending as part one and it still couldn't save the rest of the crapfest.

I have heard from someone that the cinematic version of American Psycho is probably the first time a film has outshone the book version of itself.

i'm sorry tp say but whoever told you that was talking out of a hole in their ass

the book is infinitely better than the film...

the book is far better at portraying bateman's obsessive attention to detail...it also gives more quirky little insights into his derranged character that the film comes nowhere near portraying

not to mention the fact that no film would ever be passed by the censors that stuck true to the book

i look forward to reading the sequel to the book in october...Lunar park

inthe meantime if you want to follow the Bateman family legacy i suggest you watch "the rules of attraction" which is about pat bateman's little brother....and is a far better film than american psycho

i haven't seen that one but i have seen American Psycho 2: All American Girl, she is tied up in batemans apartment with her babysitter and while hes slicing and dicing the babysitter she creeps up and stabs him to death then six years later she becomes a murderer herself to get into the FBI

If you haven't seen part 1, you need to. Part 2 was god awful but American Psycho is my favorite movie of the summer (I've watched 61 movies this summer). Anyway, why did this get moved to horror? The most horror thing about it is the title. This is why I hate little subsections everywhere on this forum. Things are always in places you don't expect to see them.

spoilers ahead!...(i don't know how to do the spoiler thingy 🙁 )

theory number two is the correct one....that was the whole point of the movie....the high class white collar yupp culture that evolved at the time...it's more a social commentary on said culture....everyone looked acted and was involved in the same thing/things to be "in"....because they lacked any actual character to be unique.....thus explains batemen's discontent at the end...he wants to be caught...he wants to be stopped, yet the society that he hates so very much is actually in a sense protecting his identity and allowing for him to avoid said capture.....his discontent lies in the fact that he hasn't been caught and may not be...not in the fact that the events which took place may or may not have happened......

Exactly. And for future posts, type [/spoiler] at the end of the spoiler and [spoiler] before. That will allow the gray cover for spoilers.

oh okay.....thanks man...

no prob.

Book as usual , infinitely better than the film.

thought the movie was shit house, but its one of those movies i might go back and re watch simply because of the time since i watched it the first time