American Psycho

[iggymcfly 0]

Just curious as to people's thoughts here. I'll post mine later, but right now I'm late for class.

[randomguy 0]

I thought it was pretty clear it was all in his head. It just got so ludicrous at points I was shaking my head. (Like when he drops the chainsaw down the stairs)

[Guest Coffey]

Where's the I saw the movie and thought it sucked option?

[Sideburnious 0]

Where's the "It inspired me to run around naked with a chainsaw" option?

[razazteca 0]

Wheres the "I did lines of coke then went to the ATM and tried to feed a stray cat to the card slot"

[dubq 0]

Where's the I saw the movie and thought it sucked option?

 

How so?

[dubq 0]

"I saw the movie and read the book and I thought it was all in his head"

[Guest Coffey]

Where's the I saw the movie and thought it sucked option?

 

How so?

The plot is fine, it's just Christian Bale that sucks. He's a bad actor. He brought Batman Begins down too. Next to Katie Holmes, he was the worst part about that movie. Good thing Michael Caine was there to redeem that bitch.

[Special K 0]

Ellis has apparently said that Bateman did it.

[dubq 0]

Where's the I saw the movie and thought it sucked option?

 

How so?

The plot is fine, it's just Christian Bale that sucks. He's a bad actor. He brought Batman Begins down too. Next to Katie Holmes, he was the worst part about that movie. Good thing Michael Caine was there to redeem that bitch.

 

Aside from the cheesy Batman voice, what's so bad about his acting. I don't see it.

[Guest Coffey]

Diff'rent Strokes I guess. He drags down every film that he's in to me. Equilibrium, Batman Begins, American Psycho, etc. I couldn't enjoy any of them because of him. It's something about his demeaner, his charisma I guess. He's just bland and comes off like he's reciting the lines he memorized instead of coming off as whom he's supposed to be in the movie and actually talking. He doesn't show a wide range of emotions.

[dubq 0]

Did you see the Machinist?

[Guest Coffey]

No, I haven't. I've never even heard of it. It won't make his other movies suck less though.

[Sideburnious 0]

Its pretty good but just think of fight club.

 

 

I always thought Bale was a good actor and he was a good pick for batman/ and bateman in psycho as he has that aristocratic arogant look. He's not that bad an actor. If anything I didnt really like Michael Kane in that role (I like the man as an actor though) mainly because he played it as a cockney, which doesn't really work for me as an alfred, personally.

[Bruiser Chong 0]

I'm always with it until the end when it gets so crazy.

 

Bale isn't a bad actor, either. I don't know what you wanted from him, Coffey, but I thought he was spot-on as the self-centered, repressed '80s yuppie that the decade was known for.

[Guest Coffey]

Its pretty good but just think of fight club.

Ironically, I didn't like Fight Club either.

[Slayer 0]

Ellis has apparently said that Bateman did it.

I initially read this as "Batman did it"

[razazteca 0]

So if Bateman did kill those people did it happen the way he remembers it?

[Mystery Eskimo 0]

Ellis has apparently said that Bateman did it.

 

Where did he say that? He's always left it open to interpretation in interviews I've read.

[Corey_Lazarus 0]

Bret Easton Ellis has stated in an interview (I'll google it for a link) that he wrote it the novel (which is remarkable in how boring the first 100 pages or so of it is so that, by the time the killing and other assorted sadistic delights come, you aren't shocked by it) that Patrick Bateman WAS, in fact, committing these atrocities, but just everybody around him was so preoccupied with themselves that nobody noticed.

 

The entire novel is one big satire/indictment of the "Me" generation in the 80's, really. Movie was pretty good at conveying that, too.

[Special K 0]

I remember him specifically stating that if Bateman hadn't killed those people, it wouldn't work as a satire.

[AmericanDragon 0]

I chose the "it was real" option because the movie is a whole lot funnier that way. After all, it's a satire.

[teke184 0]

I think that the entire last reel of the film, dealing with Bateman's confessions and people laughing at him and his attempts to deal with evidence are examples of everyone glossing over what happened because he's seen as a huge square by people in his social circle.

 

In addition, I think the scene where he attempts to clean up Paul Allen's apartment is about the ruthlessness of the real estate lady, as she'd cover up the horriffic murders in the apartment in an attempt to rent the high-end property to unsuspecting suckers. If the murders were ever revealed, it would hurt her chances of renting out that apartment as well as ANY apartment in that building.

 

 

 

However, the part I *will* concede was in Bateman's head was the entire sequence starting with the "Feed me a stray cat" message from the ATM.

 

Whether that chase / shootout was a total fantasy or was just overblown in his head is a matter of conjecture.

[iggymcfly 0]

Just now getting around to my thoughts on this. When I watched the movie, I initially assumed that it was all in his head. It just seemed like it was being revealed that way with the crazy last night followed by the apartment being different followed by his lawyer saying that he'd had dinner with Allen. My roommate was adamant that it was real though, and that it was just that no one around him noticed.

 

From what I've seen on the internet, the actual author refused to say definitively what was going on, saying that he wanted to leave it open to the interpretation of the reader. There have been reports he said the killings were real and reports he said they weren't but nothing credible as far as I can tell.

 

Anyway, my take is that since it can be interpreted either way, the best interpretation is that he actually killed the people. It's just more substantive and interesting that way. However, I think that the director of the movie took the opposite interpretation, and was trying to show that the killings were indeed in his head. The ATM machine talking to him, the emphasis on the pills, and even the emphasis on the video tapes all seem to point toward the killings being imagined. It seems like the director was trying to say that he was just projecting things he'd watched in movies on to his real life.

 

Anyway, since it's unresolved, I just wanted to take a poll to see where the majority opinion is on this. Again, I haven't actually read the book, but it seems like its best interpretation would be of a real killer whereas the movie took a different perspective completely.

[Gary Floyd 0]

I remember during Christmas break, my brother, while doing a paper about censorship in school libraries, got into an arguement with my parents, and said that "American Psycho" should be allowed in High School libraries. Of course, he's a vegan "punk" rocker type, so his opinions are worthless to me usually.

[NoCalMike 0]

Did you see the Machinist?

 

Christian Bale was the bomb in The Machinist.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

Anyway, my take is that since it can be interpreted either way, the best interpretation is that he actually killed the people. It's just more substantive and interesting that way. However, I think that the director of the movie took the opposite interpretation, and was trying to show that the killings were indeed in his head. The ATM machine talking to him, the emphasis on the pills, and even the emphasis on the video tapes all seem to point toward the killings being imagined. It seems like the director was trying to say that he was just projecting things he'd watched in movies on to his real life.

Pretty much how I feel. I voted for "seen the movie, all in his head" for the reasons you outlined, but I think it's obviously a better and funnier story if he actually did do it all.

[Corey_Lazarus 0]

The director of the movie most definitely wanted to get it across that Bateman was imagining the killings as a way to escape his meaningless life. It's actually funny, because it can all be seen as Bateman really doing everything until the misplacement of one scene.

 

Either before or right after the ATM-induced shootout, Bateman calls his secretary and has a nervous breakdown on the phone. That is in the movie. In the book, the breakdown happens before any murders occur.

 

I sorta wish the movie took more murders out of the book than it did. The one with the starved rat would have been the most senselessly brutal thing ever shown on a screen, and the one at the zoo would have actually been sorta funny (well, at least I laughed at it, mostly because of what Bateman says before going stabby-stabby: "Hey, you want, uhh...a cookie?").

[dubq 0]

Did you see the Machinist?

 

Christian Bale was the bomb in The Machinist.

 

Yes, he was. I quite enjoy his acting and I think that personally (in person I mean) he comes across much more "real" than a lot of today's actors.

[NoCalMike 0]

Did you see the Machinist?

 

Christian Bale was the bomb in The Machinist.

 

Yes, he was. I quite enjoy his acting and I think that personally (in person I mean) he comes across much more "real" than a lot of today's actors.

 

 

Well yeah, and the fact that he legit lost all t hat weight, when the director has agreed to CGI some more off for him instead, but Bale refused.

I am proud to have seen that in the local indy theater.