Just saw American Psycho for the first time...
 

What the hell was that?

I blind bought this since Im a fan of Bale, seriel killer movies, and the 80s but this movie left me confused a bit. I understand not delving into psychological past, hes a shell and just spoiled with nothing to do, blah blah. But just to make sure, he was just fantisizing right? He didnt kill a damn person did he? Everyone they showed him kill was a nobody no one would miss, those around he wanted to kill he couldnt do, except Letos character, than it states that Leto really was in London and not dead. Than why was Defoe even there if people knew he was in London?

The movie was alright; not worth the $7 I paid, but I laughed alot at it. I think it was suppose to be a bit of a dark comedy right? I mean I asked why was he wearing Tennis shoes while fucking, than thats all hes wearing when chasing that girl around the building with a chainsaw. I guess it was a good idea to have em on cause he knew he was going to be doing some running :lol:

Right.

I personally loved this movie. I thought it was very funny too, but in a good way. It's the best movie Bale has ever been in as far as I'm concerned. It was his best performance too.

Oh come on, the Machinist was tons better. He really showed chops and commitment there.


Oh and if this movie is all fantasy, how the hell can he be a seriel killer?

Whether or not he committed all of the crimes portrayed in the book and movie is ambiguous.

It is a satire of that time and lifestyle. The killings happened. However, it is tough to argue tvpuff's point.

Wrong. According to the director/writers, he did them.

Yeah, I always though he did them too. And I figured the reason people had seen the dead dude around is just that they had mistaken some other empty suit for him...just like he'd mistaken Bale for another empty suit.

The apartment was cleaned out and covered up to maintain property value, I assumed.

No, I'm pretty sure he killed Leto's character. Part of the point was that his character was just somebody else no one would miss. Throughout the story, people get each other's names wrong and don't really care who they're around or spending time with, as long as the people look 'right'. They're so concentrated on exterior conformity that they're pretty much interchangeable and utterly meaningless as individuals. That was my read on it anyway.

I just looked this up and you're right. In the movie it was real, but in the book, it was in his head. Strange.

"Here's the straight up word-of-mouth from the director and the screenwriter (Harron and Turner)... in the MOVIE, he did commit the murders, because they thought it would be a cop-out to have it all in his head, especially since the recent release of Fight Club already played that game and became popular. They felt that for the movie, it would be better if he committed the murders, since it would be less of a cinematic cop-out that way.
In the BOOK, it's all in his head. Guinevere Turner and Mary Harron both know this, but for the movie... yes, Bateman killed them."

Yep a friend read the book and was terribly disappointed with the movie because of the "real" murders. But that's usually the case anyway.

No wonder certain bestselling authors refuse to sell the copyrights of their books to the filmmakers. The movie was very convoluted to me, which made it difficult to comprehend, if the murders were imaginary, or real.

Same here. I've watched the movie at least three times, and I honestly thought the murders were imaginary all this time. digitalfreaknyc's post made me look up info on the movie, and only then did I realize the murders were real. Confusing movie, but I still like it.

I always assumed the murders were in his head too, like in the book. The one thing that always drove that home is where he very accuratlky drops that chainsaw down the flights of stairs...Even attempting to say that's possible is ridiculous...

All I know is that I haven't been able to enjoy the music of Huey Lewis and the News ever since I saw this movie.

He really did the murders, but we are seeing them stylized from his insane point of view.......so what we are seeing is extremely exaggerated.

I assumed the same thing. The realtor I think even realized that he was the murderer, which is why she asked him to leave. She cared more about maintaining the property value, than the fact that bodies had been dumped there. The movie is a really biting satire of 1980s self-absorption, vanity, and greed.

:up:

Social commentary or social satire.

I just finished watching American Psycho again tonight because of this thread. I enjoyed it more than I ever have before. I don't know if that's because this thread reignited my interest or because I haven't seen the movie in about 11 months. Either way, I've just gained a whole new appreciation for this movie. I've always loved it, but watching it a fourth time just gave me a sense of it being almost flawless.

However, even though they say that the murders really happened, I STILL did not get that impression, despite his confessions. It STILL seemed imaginary to me. But I'm not denying that the murders were real, I mean obviously if the writers themselves say they were real, then they were. ;)

I usually watch all of the extras and commentary on my dvds, but on this one I realized that I hadn't! And I've had this dvd for over a year. Well I watched tonight, and found out Johnny Depp and Leonardo Dicaprio were once in talks to play Bale's role. Interesting! Bale was great, but I bet Depp would've been just as good. Don't know about Leo.

The book actually made me nauseous. The murders were horrific.

That said, I absolutely love this movie.

I loved the book and hated the film:)

Speaking of the murders being real or not in either format. I think the filmmakers have their things mixed up.

The murders in the book are very much a reality and not fantasy.


There is some confusion about this based on comments Ellis has made once the shit hit the fan with the protestors and such and also his latest book Lunar Park,which further mentions Bateman made it all up,since he's bored and a big loser etc etc.

I don't have the interview on hand,but it is available online somewhere. Where Ellis did state that Lunar Park is not 100% fact despite mixing in some real aspects of his life(ie-the character in the novel is Bret Easton Ellis an author who's wrote Less Than Zero,Rules of Attraction, American Psycho etc). But the Ellis in the novel is not the real Bret Easton Ellis. Thus just because he states in the novel Bateman made it all up for a variety of reasons,does not mean it is true.

And also available somewhere on the net are various interviews with Ellis where he discusses 'was it real or not' aspect of American Psycho. And he thinks it's all real,since the point of the material wouldn't be as effective if it were all in his head. Yet he is open to the ambiguity of it and doesn't mind the debate of 'did he or didn't he?'.

Personally, I hate the "did he or didn't he" debates. In my opinion, it's irrelevant. Whether he actually committed the crimes or not has no bearing on the film or what it's trying to say.

-JP

You said this a lot better than I could have. But yeah, I always remembered Ellis saying the murders were real then backing off once the protesters tried to get the book banned. That reminds me to buy Lunar Park though.

I'm sick and twisted so, regardless of what should be correct, I'll always believe he did the killings. It makes for much better movie-going satisfaction :chainsaw:

Oh yes it does! It reveals a precise element to the main character's behavioral intent, by knowing his actual mentality, if the murders were imaginary, or real in conclusion.

Also, if the murders were imagined, it completely destroys the social satire of the Reagan-era in my opinion.

I first saw this movie in the theater. I walked out of it not even thinking of the possibility that the murders were fake. One of my friends disagreed and we argued about it, but eventually I convinced him it was not all in his head (that would have totally ruined the movie for me......we need another "it wasn't real, it was all in his mind" movie like we need another Uwe Boll film). Then it became a much debated topic on DVDTalk (do a search and you will find a dozen or more different threads full basically a 50/50 split opinion on the matter), and I started to ignore those threads because they usually just pissed me off. While I certainly can see the point of view that the murders might be imagined, I think it's just too easy and trite of an explanation that ruins everything the movie has set up. I'm sort of glad that the writer and director stated their opinions of it all being real in the commentary on the re-release dvd (at least that's where I think it was......I don't know as I have never heard it myself as I still have the original dvd release).

This is one of my favorite movies. The narration Bale gives is very subdued, which is a nice contrast to his onscreen actions. The comments he makes are perfect in a passive-aggressive way.

I always thought he did it, but no one really noticed.

I simply loved the film. I love to hear the clips on the radio and refrences to the movie's classic lines "Don't just stare at it, eat it" or hearing Christian Bale talk about Huey Lewis and the news before he kills people. Christian Bale is bloody brilliant.

I like to belive he did it and got away with it as well.

I always figured everything was real up until the point of the ATM telling him to stuff the cat inside....after that there's the revolving door shooting, that cop shoot out w/exploding car AND the fact that he was spot on with every pull of the trigger.

My favorite book, and a very very good movie - entertaining, interesting, just very creative. I think there are sooo many funny scenes in the movie, and I think Bale does a really, really good job. When reading the book I think the movie does VERY well.

"I have a lunch appointment with Cliff Huxtable".
"Is Paul still handling the Fischer-account?"
"Tell him I'm at lunch"
"I guess I had to return some videotapes. And then I had some sorbet."
"I have to return some videotapes"
"Is that Ivana trump??"
"The thickness of it. My God...it even has a watermark!"
"Did you see the ad in the times?"

- and the list goes on and on, truly one of the funnies movies (kinda scary book though) I have seen.

It was these chain of events that always confused the hell out of me. But I'm tired of figuring out if he did them or not. I just look at the film as a social satire of the 80's ;)

The book really disgusted me. I had to actually put it down for a year before restarting and completing it. The killings were a lot more graphic and sadistic (i.e. rat+tube+cheese+victim).

Harron actually made the movie a lot more palatable. There was no way they could have been faithful to the book.

After seeing the movie again I wonder ONE thing

Are we relying on what the filmakers have said in interviews and shit to determine the killings were real? In the movie it still seems like a big illusion. If the movie cant make it clear than I think its a huge hole that totally fucks the movie. I shouldnt have to read a BB or an interview to learn what the movie means or is trying to portray. If it wasnt clear in the movie, someone didnt do their job well.

That 3 way with Phil Collins "sosudio" (or whatever the fuck it is) is damn hilarious.

It wasn't supposed to be clear, though. It was supposed to be confusing, vague, ambiguous, etc. Much like the rest of the 80s, really.

American Psycho doesn't try to tell a neat and tidy little story, so it's not a bad movie for failing to do so.

ive seen this movie many times over the years and still do not understand the ending where the lawyer is calling him by a totally different name.

it's ambiguous. you're not supposed to bu sure if he killed anyone. he's nuts.

If he didn't kill them, then the movie has no point.



The book is far more ambiguous as to whether or not he actually killed anyone. The whole thing reads like a laundry list. "Drank Perrian, made reservations, pulled out a bum's eyeball, returned some tapes," and so on. The murders get lost in the intentional monotony of the narrative.