Guest Catfish Jake Report post Posted March 27, 2002 i remember an old thread about this movie but i thought i would start a new one. i just watched AP the other day and i enjoyed the movie but i really didnt get what was supposed to be going on. someone tell me what im missing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Youth N Asia Report post Posted March 27, 2002 I think the guy was just fantasizing that he did all of those acts...I believe "sick in the head" is the medical term for it. Overrated Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest teke184 Report post Posted March 27, 2002 The film can be seen one of two ways: 1. Everyone that Bateman ran into in New York was so shallow and self-absorbed that they either ignored what he did or covered it up (in the case of the apartment). OR 2. It was all in Bateman's head The book, however, made it obvious that Bateman had done it all and everyone looked the other way. If you want to read something as spectacularly disturbing as American Psycho, try Less Than Zero by the same author (Bret Easton Ellis). Just don't watch the Robert Downey Jr. movie of it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest bps "The Truth" 21 Report post Posted March 27, 2002 It's all about power. Bateman was a rich, successful, good looking man. Enough to get away with murder. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Youth N Asia Report post Posted March 27, 2002 Or...Bateman was a man so bored with his life and the constant routine that went with it that he used the acts he thought out as an escape into something less boring. Anyway, I liked the movie...but I was still disapointed. Everyone seems to love the book though...I think I'll give that a shot. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Catfish Jake Report post Posted March 27, 2002 why did the guard in the office building call him Mr Smith and why did his lawyer guy call him Davis and why did Paul Allen call him Halberstrand and all his friends call him Pat Bateman. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest LooseCannon Report post Posted March 27, 2002 Because all of these people were just corporate automatons and completely interchangeable, to the extent that some people confused one's identity with another's and didn't really know who was who. The implication being that they all had the same personality, the same look, et cetera. This isn't done just with Bateman, but also with some of the others, particularly the guy he kills, who is subsequently "seen" in London. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest teke184 Report post Posted March 27, 2002 In the film, a big deal was made over how interchangable most of the execs were at the investment firms in New York. Bateman made did a long voiceover about how much he and Paul Allen looked alike (build, hair color, suits, glasses, etc.). IIRC, there is one exec throughout the entire movie who's never referred to by the wrong name and that's Luis. Then again, Luis sticks out like a sore thumb. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Judas14 Report post Posted March 27, 2002 The film can be seen one of two ways: 1. Everyone that Bateman ran into in New York was so shallow and self-absorbed that they either ignored what he did or covered it up (in the case of the apartment). OR 2. It was all in Bateman's head The book, however, made it obvious that Bateman had done it all and everyone looked the other way. If you want to read something as spectacularly disturbing as American Psycho, try Less Than Zero by the same author (Bret Easton Ellis). Just don't watch the Robert Downey Jr. movie of it. It's the other way around: The movie was created with the idea that Bateman is a serial killer who gets away with murder because whole replacable nature of the world he lives in. The book has Bateman as a self-hating lunatic who created a fantasy world for himself where he killed people in order to justify his disgust he felt for becoming yet another faceless, interchangible cog as an adult.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest teke184 Report post Posted March 27, 2002 In the book, there was at least one part where a person that Bateman injured earlier in the novel (the bum in the alley) came back with the exact injury that Bateman gave him. I thought that was enough to show that Bateman really did what was described in the book, or at least some of it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Vyce Report post Posted March 27, 2002 I loved the film. I personally found it hilarious. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest bps "The Truth" 21 Report post Posted March 27, 2002 I agree with Vyce. I thought it was a very funny movie. I always thought that it was a satire of the rich and beautiful and what they can get away with. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest J*ingus Report post Posted March 27, 2002 I thought the movie came off like it was all in his head. Except for the hilarious scene with the carnivorous ATM, I pretty much hated the whole thing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest dreamer420 Report post Posted March 27, 2002 I scene at the ATM was pretty cool. I seen the actions of Patrick Bateman as being all in his mind. The ending gave that away IMO. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Catfish Jake Report post Posted March 27, 2002 guess i just need to read the book as the movie is seemingly fucking things up. oh well. at least i cant be the only one who hoped to see his secretary naked or at least take a nail to the head. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest teke184 Report post Posted March 27, 2002 The bit at the ATM was CLASSIC, although the ensuing chase was VERY over-the-top. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest dreamer420 Report post Posted March 27, 2002 I think the chase was meant to be over the top as Patrick pretty well hits rock bottom right after the killing spree. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest teke184 Report post Posted March 27, 2002 Yes, it was intentionally over the top, as the film acknowledged it when Bateman started staring at his gun during the shootout. I'll be going now, as I have to return some videos... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Mystery Eskimo Report post Posted March 27, 2002 For anyone who read the book first, the film was disappointing. But then I don't think it's the kind of book that can be an effective film, obviously the violence had to be toned down, and you can't get inside Batemans head in quite the same way. Plotwise, it's basically a comment on the self-absorption and capitalist excesses of the 1980's, how this dehumanises society. The book also raises the question as to whether or not it is all in Bateman's head a lot more effectively than the film does. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest TheDames7 Report post Posted March 28, 2002 I was kinda confused by the ending until I read this post. Thanks guys. My favorite "spot" of the movie is during the big shootout scene at the end...when he goes into the revolving door, only to keep revolving, shoot a maintenance worker, and then exit the building. Here's a little tidbit for thought. They are making an American Psycho sequel, although this time, the killer is a former victim of Bateman's that survived. Yes, it sounds like crap....but doesn't that make it seem as if Bateman's actions really DID take place then? Dames Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest teke184 Report post Posted March 28, 2002 I was disappointed when I heard about the sequel, as I expected Bateman to come back instead of this "Escaped victim becomes worse than him and moves" bullshit. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Mystery Eskimo Report post Posted March 28, 2002 There's going to be a sequel? man, that is going to be awful. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Youth N Asia Report post Posted March 28, 2002 http://www.upcomingmovies.com They're expecting it to go straight to video. Other horror sequals coming out or in the works: -Jason X...Friday the 13th Part 10 -Texas Chainsaw Massacre...Remake -House of 1,000 Corpses...who knows if this will ever come out -Blair Witch 3...I think I am the only person that likeed 1 and 2 -Childs Play 5 check it out...pretty cool site Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest CoreyLazarus416 Report post Posted March 29, 2002 Actually, Youth, I enjoyed both Blair Witch films. I actually liked the second one better, as it's a mindfuck, in a sense. Were they under a spell by the witch, or did mass hysteria cause them to remember things differently? Plus, the soundtrack was kickass (then again, any soundtrack with Godhead on it is kickass in my book), and the goth chick was hot as HELL. I just can't discover the Secret Of Esrever...I know you're supposed to rewind the movie and check it out, but... LITTLE SPOOKALICIOUS TIDBIT ABOUT BLAIR WITCH 2: Watch the gravestone that the goth chick is lying down in front of when the rest of the crew first meets her. The message on it changes from a name to "Further" and then back to a name. A sequel to American Psycho? It's gonna be shit. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest J*ingus Report post Posted March 29, 2002 Blair Witch 2... eh. I liked some of the intentions that the director had going into the movie, which he explained on the DVD commentary, but I just didn't like the final product. But this is the first I've heard of a part 3. Any news on what it's about? American Psycho 2: with the plot I've heard described, I can't imagine it being any good, especially since it would completely do away with the ambiguity of the first movie. (Maybe. What if the main character only thought she'd been victimized by Bateman?) Jason X: probably gonna suck. Friday the 13th was a dead series, couldn't we leave well enough alone? Texas Chainsaw remake: first I've heard of it, any details? I won't get my hopes up, as the sequels have gotten progressively (and geometrically) worse and worse. House of 1000 Corpses: I'm intrigued, but who knows if it'll ever get a theatrical release. Child's Play 5: hell why not, especially if they do another comedy ala Bride of Chucky. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest El Satanico Report post Posted March 29, 2002 Jason X: will be terrible but i will be seeing it in the theater since i've seen all of them except Goes To Hell at a theater. TCM remake: Didn't they already do that with Renee Zelwelger and Matthew McConaughey before both of them were famous? However if this means they are doing a scene for scene remake i hope it NEVER happens. Being cheap, dirty and shitty looking is what makes the movie a cult classic. A clean modern movie print would ruin the damn movie. House of 1000 Corpses: This isn't a remake of sequel. However i'm very interested in seeing it. Hopefully one of the smaller studios that are willing to take a chance will get it to the theaters. However if Zombie can't get any studios to bite i'd be happy with a quality DVD release with alot of extras. I'll be pissed if we get neither of these and just toss it out on a cheap bare bones DVD. Well i'd still buy it but would be pissed off. Hell i'd be happy even if they give Canada a extras filled DVD and America a bare bones version like they did with Ginger Snaps. Child's Play 5: I've heard rumors of this. At one time i believe it was going to be something like Son of Chucky done as a black comedy like Bride of Chucky. But awhile ago i then heard rumors that plans for another Chucky movie had been scraped so who knows. Here's a upcoming movie site focused on horror... http://www.upcominghorrormovies.com/ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest teke184 Report post Posted March 29, 2002 I've seen about the first 20 minutes or so of Jason X on a bootleg that a friend of mine has and it looks okay. It certainly looks better than MOST horror sequels I've seen in quite a while (Jason Take Manhatten, Halloween Underwater (H20), Halloween 6: theatrical release version, etc.) My friend loved it to death, but he's also a die-hard horror fan, even of the shittier Friday movies. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest CoreyLazarus416 Report post Posted March 30, 2002 Dammit...WHY MUST YOU ALL RAG ON FRIDAY THE 13TH VIII: JASON TAKES MANHATTAN?! That's my favorite one of the series...it did more than just some stupid "Kane Hodder in a hockey mask slicing and dicing horny teenagers at a summer camp" routine...it did all that on a BOAT and in MANHATTAN! Plus, the boxer, Julius (I beleive that was his name), owned all...especially his death scene. Soon, kiddies, you will all read my script for Necrominators...when I finish it, of course... Nothing better than combining a mroe adult version of Ghostbusters, zombie movies, and government conspiracies... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest TheDames7 Report post Posted March 30, 2002 OK, dammit.....I've got something to say here. Jason Takes Manhattan...pure crap. Yes, it has ONE funny kill (the boxer)..other than that, he's in Manhattan for what...15 minutes total? The ending was so fucking stupid that it just completely killed any credibility that it had with me. Halloween 6: Pile of steaming crap. Michael is controlled by a cult? CRAP!!!!!!! The Man in Black? CRAP!!!!!!!! Halloween H20: Decent. If you watch 1, 2 then H20, you can appreciate it more. My main problem with it is that they completely disregard 4-6 (HELLO Jamie Lee....you had a daughter!!!!!!) Too many false scares, not enough killing Blair Witch 1 & 2: I LIKED 2 dammit! It seems like most people completely didn't understand that the characters of part 2 were FANS of the first film. It wasn't a real sequel in that respect. Childs Play 5. Unless its "Son of Chucky", which should be an f'n comedy....WHY??? Dames - Should Kill You Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
