Inthe 80s, you could rack up some hefty fees if you didn't return your video tapes on time. The realization that they're due in an hour and the rush to return them was very real, making "I need to return some video tapes" a very valid 80s excuse to duck out.
For the normal working class, that is true. But, this is a black comedy about a group of Wall St. yuppies who routinely pay hundreds of dollars for just lunch. So, "late fees" for videotapes would hardly be breaking the bank. It's just a funny line, like Bateman's other excuses for wanting to leave an awkward situation, like having a fake meeting with Cliff Huckstable (Bill Cosby).
One thing no one seems to realize or at least talk about is that all the "opinions" Patrick has (about music, society, etc.) are not his own, they're actually from articles and reviews he reads. That's why they're all so eloquent and deep. Patrick has no sense of self and therefore no actual opinion about anything (at least not positive ones) other than serial killers (the only time he shows genuine emotion is when he talks about Ted Bundy or Ed Gein).
@@Greenwood4727 not really relevant. The point is, he lights up when he talks about serial killers, it's the only time he shows real emotion, any other emotion he shows is either disgust, or fake.
@@Enrique-Garcia well i would say it was, he is obviously a fan of serial killers, and he has to be perfect the best, he misquoted about gein, maybe he read it was gein but for his personality it shows a lot about him
"I have to return some video tapes." is a plausible 1980s excuse. If you returned the tapes late, or un-rewound you could be charged a fine. Depending on the selection, searching for obscure video tapes to rent could lead you to some far flung places, especially in New York City.
The business card scene earned Bale the name "Robo-Actor" from the director, because he could consistently make himself break into a sweat essentially on cue. During that scene, as his character became more agitated in response to being "upstaged" by Paul Allen's business card, Bale somehow managed to perspire at the same point every take.
The use of visuals to make Bateman an unreliable narrator is my favorite part of American Psycho, along with the various takes of Willem Dafoe where he does and doesn't suspect Bateman. It's a great satire of materialism, yuppie culture, and the idea of 'psychopath as CEO'.
Along that line, I've always wondered: Is Bateman even correct about Paul Allen? Given how everyone else seems to be confused about who's who, is it possible that Bateman has confused some other random corporate drone with Allen?
@@YourXavier This is an interesting take, but Paul does give Bryce a business card with his name on it, so I think we are meant to think that Jared Leto really is Paul Allen.
This is a world of conformity where everyone tries to both simultaneously imitate everyone else, while also, paradoxically, trying to be seen as the best among their peers. This is why, throughout the film, all of the characters are constantly confusing one person for another. They're all vapid and shallow and demonstrate no unique character that make them stand out in a sea of faces. In such a social environment, a true psychopath could easily blend in, because everyone around them is so shallow and myopic in their scope of interest, that someone could commit truly grisly crimes and go completely unnoticed or, at best, have other people actively assist in covering up the crimes out of self-interest. This is why no one in Patrick's apartment complex reacted to the sounds of someone screaming for her life and a chainsaw buzzing in the hallway. They simply don't care. This is also why the woman in Paul Alan's apartment behaved so strangely and told him sternly to leave. She covered up the crime scene so that the property value of the apartment wouldn't go down. Patrick Bateman is not the titular psychopath of the film, the 80's yuppie culture that he exists in is. The film is about him gradually coming to the realization that being a bloodthirsty murderer doesn't make him unique in this world that is filled to the gills with unfeeling monsters. He is just another insignificant, albeit exceedingly privileged, cog in this machine that will endlessly facilitate his most savage impulses, or otherwise overlook them entirely.
@justmeeagainn Eh, it's more cynical in tone, with nowhere near enough empty platitudes. But I get where you're coming from. It's lofty and prose-like writing, I'll cop to that.
Fun fact: the scene with business cards was where Christian Bale demonstrated to the film crew the fact that he can sweat heavily just by thinking about it.
This is the real 80s. The one you didn’t see in most 80s Hollywood movies. In those movies, Patrick Bateman would have been the hero. This is all done from Patrick’s perspective and at some point you realize he’s not the most reliable historian.
The "I gotta return some videotapes" is a reference to the days of Blockbuster Video. If you didn't return your tapes on time you were charged a late fee. It was part of daily life in the 80's.
Brett Easton Ellis wrote a satire of yuppie culture in the 80s and the hyper reality that was displayed was meant to convey a general sense of shallowness by all involved. Bale initially was unsure of the role because he said he kept laughing when he read the script. Brett assured him that it was also meant to be seen in a humorous context adding to the general ludicrous nature of Patrick Bateman's life.
I felt the same way you did the first time I watched this movie. The violence and tension was so shocking that I couldn't really appreciate other aspects of the film. On subsequent viewings, I knew what to expect, so it wasn't as shocking. Which allowed me to recognize and appreciate the brilliant satire, social commentary, and dark absurdist humor.
My interpretation is that none of the murders happened. He is a psychopath trying to ‘fit in’ by mimicking the behaviour he thinks he needs to for inhabiting this superficial world he’s in. I think the movie is him having a psychotic break and losing control of his mind, thinking he’s carrying out his desires externally but it’s all imaginary. At the end he realises he’s not actually done it and there’s slight disappointment because he’s tired and wants to be judged. Even though there is an ambiguous ending I think something does change because his secretary has found his diary and now realises how sick he is.
Mary Harron - "One thing I think is a failure on my part is people keep coming out of the film thinking that it’s all a dream, and I never intended that. All I wanted was to be ambiguous in the way that the book was. I think it’s a failure of mine in the final scene because I just got the emphasis wrong. I should have left it more open ended. It makes it look like it was all in his head, and as far as I’m concerned, it’s not.”
You’re the first person I’ve seen actually disturbed by this film. I’m sure you’re not alone. I saw it shortly after it was released on VHS and it’s one of my favorite movies to this day. I took it as a satire on yuppie culture of the 80s as well as a dark comedy. I found Patrick hilarious 🤷♀️
That’s exactly what the film is so you are perceiving it as intended. I like Shanelle and think her reactions and commentary are typically very spot on and insightful but she totally whiffed on the tone of the movie. If you’re not laughing your ass off at most of these scenes you’re doing it wrong.
That's absolutely what it is but yeah idk, depending on your personality you may find the depiction of people and acts this awful repulsive even if it's a satire and you're aware of it. Personally, I find it both horrifying and funny, but I definitely wouldn't judge anyone for having an awful experience with it.
I found it creepy too, but I read a lot about disorders so it felt to me more like what a person with a personality disorder might be going through. I guess 2000 is a bit too late to comment on yuppie culture for some, especially since those types still exist. I can see how it's a comment on "fake" people who are more obsessed with the perception of others - again, could make the same movie about certain people today.
Yeah for the longest time I typically could never watch the movie in full because of how disturbing I found it in its entirety... Despite also considering it to be absolutely hilarious.
This is such an interesting film. It’s more of a character study and a dark comedy. Many people think it’s just a horror movie. The book is amazing as well
I like to think of this movie as an analogy for bigger businessmen and how ruthless they are in their ego trips, to the point where as a class they can get away with murder (sometimes literally), but even if someone were to blow the whistle on things it wouldn't matter. I also like the scene where he tells Jean to leave; the movie is sure to let us know how good and innocent (read: pure) Jean is as a person, it feels like the reason Patrick likes her is because she is authentic, but his view of her innocence starts to dim when he realizes she wants to go to Dorsia, or otherwise partake in the shallowness of his culture. I think he tells her to leave because despite being wealthy and seen as high-class, he knows it's poison and doesn't want her to live that kind of life. Or I'm way off idk haha
Weird Al made a sketch with Huey Lewis recreating the scene where Christian Bale murders Jared Leto while talking about Huey Lewis. It was very meta and very hilarious.
"I get why it was made at the time but I don't really see a need for this anymore" On the contrary, I'd say its message about callous materialism is as relevant today as it was when it was written. In both the book and the movie Bateman frequently fawns over his hero: Donald Trump- who Bateman's character was inspired by.
I’ve only seen reference from Ellis to himself and his father being inspirations for Patrick Bateman. Tom Cruise is also cited by Bale as inspiration for his performance itself. I do however completely agree this is an extremely relevant theme today. Narcissism and materialism is just as rampant today if not worse.
The scene where he asks his secretary out to dinner is my favorite. He wears sunglasses because he's trying so hard to "hide" his psychopathy. Deep down he knows his desires are wrong and he wants to hide them so bad. When she gets to his place, he tries so desperately not to act on those desires, and eventually succeeds. It's truly a mentally exhaustive struggle for him to not kill her.
This is my take: The movie is at its core -- merely a satire. The world that Patrick Bateman exists in is one where everyone is so self-absorbed that they don't even remember the names of their closest friends. It is in some ways, just a kind of an Orwellian fictional nightmare scenario where everyone has become full-blown sociopaths. But they play it for laughs, all while showing the disturbing reality of such a world. While there are obviously some things that are all in Bateman's head (blowing up a police car with a gun and seeing "feed me a stray cat") -- much of his killing is really happening. He's getting away with it all because no one really cares.
If I'm repeating anyone, apologies. Essentially, it's Wall Street meets Psycho, Gordon Gecko meets Norman Bates. It's a commentary on the decade's conservatism, greed, and commercialism represented by the yuppies in the movie. Even professionals outside that world and observant people whose specific job is to reign criminal excess in still find ways to overlook and/or excuse the bullshit. From all of that, I've always taken the meaning of the movie to be that maybe all, some or none of the events happened, but it doesn't matter. We were heading down a road where more powerful people were finding it easier to be shitty in real damaging ways. So, maybe it's not a serial killer, but it might actually be worse. Or that's not anything, who the hell knows what anything is.😅 Also, maybe don't watch Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer.
The film is about the yuppie culture and narcissism. It's about how all of those guys are virtually indistinguishable from one another and it plays on that. Their suits, haircuts, glasses, etc... Notice how they constantly get mistaken for one another too. Like, they're all vice-presidents on their business cards lmao. Anyhow, whether or not Patrick committed all of those murders is up for interpretation. The ending essentially shows that in that type of world nobody cares or people are simply willing to look the other way. It ties back to the beginning where Patrick says he simply is not there, and it's almost like he isn't. He's just another guy floating amongst everybody else. Often unseen or overlooked.
It was meant to be a comedy, baby - but, if you want a deeper analysis, here it is:- "When you seek purpose in a life devoid of it, your mind can conjure it up, even if it's not what you intended." (c) AlleyKatPr0
11:00 - Yeah, him and Vincent D'Onofrio. You should see D'Onofrio on Full Metal Jacket and Adventures In Babysitting. Now *THAT'S* a remarkable transformation.
Christian Bale was only 25 when filming began in February of 1999, although he had been training for 6 months to get in shape. Also, "I have to return some videotapes" isn't code for anything. Back in the late 80s, blockbuster was how we watched movies, and people would rent video tapes multiple times per week! The problem was, you would pay $2 for a rental, but every day you were late returning it, they charged you another 2 bucks. So Sometimes you spent more renting a movie than it would have cost you to see it in a theater. I remember once I ended up with $36 in late fees for renting Beverley Hills Cop 2 and good Morning Vietnam. I could have taken a date to both movies in the theater for roughly the same price!
22:23 - "...that made me so uncomfortable!" The hallmark of great cinema. If you don't unsettle your audience, at the very least once, you're doing it wrong.
The author of American Psycho also wrote “Less Than Zero” which was turned into an amazing film with Robert Downy Jr and “The Rules of Attraction” which didn’t stick to staying in the 1980’s and unfortunately didn’t live up to the other two films.
I don't believe I've seen a top row on a Reactors channel that's more full of Classics than on this channel at this moment. You're a Real One, Shanelle. 👍✌❤
A brilliant satire on the 80’s NY culture. That scene in the apt at the end, that’s literally the real estate market in NYC - to this day, gotta find those apartments! Thanks for getting through this, totally agree with you at the end there - I think in this culture here it CAN happen, and probably all did (cept for the atm+ sequence) . If this was too much for you stay away from the book - that’s x10 more disturbing, great satire but boy, hard to stomach a lot of it.
great film, when people ask where i am going or why im leaving i say " i need to return some video tapes" ... sometimes, believe the directors said the ending did actually happen . "won't be prosecuted for his crimes based on his affluence and high-society station"
As weird and a little confusing it may be, I find it to be a bit poetic in some parts when he’s narrating, and there are many theories as to what exactly happened which makes it more interesting
Huey Lewis and Weird Al did a Spoof on that very scene where Bale kills Leto, its on youtube its great when actors/ singers acknowledge and go along with the gag
I always wanted to see your reaction to Requiem for a Dream.. it's one of the best films of the 2000s.. but after watching your reaction to this film I don't think you'd be able to handle it.. they're completely different films, but if you thought this was hard to watch then I can't imagine how hard Requiem for a Dream would be for you.. it's a masterpiece and has masterclass filmmaking and acting.. I still highly recommend it and it'll also get views, it always does.. it's a film that everyone should see at least once..
A lot of people praise this movie for having an ambiguous ending, but I always felt it gets that more from being rushed than intentional. It's too difficult to compress this book into a film. This is a story that would be better suited to a mini-series from a major streaming service like HBO.
The first interview between the detective and Bateman was filmed two times. One with suspicion and one without suspicion. They cut the two interviews together and it is really confusing to see both attitudes in the same scene.
The time period was obvious, but maybe not even to someone in her 30s. Even though whatever you read stated the movie was set in 1987, Patrick said he was listening to the new Robert Palmer album while "Simply Irresistible" played, which was released in 1988. The detective had a "new" Huey Lewis and the News CD, although it was new in 1986. Reagan's speech at the end was from 1987. In the book, Patrick ran into Tom Cruise in the elevator and complimented him on the summer 1988 movie "Cocktail." There were not enough references to the time period simply because brands did not give their permission. I guess it was easier to know for those of us alive then.
Yeeeeesssss!!! This is my favorite Christian Bale role. Then Empire of the Sun and The Prestige. The monolog at the end when he is going nuts is AMAZING. it reminds me of the end of Rambo. I used to watch this while tripping on DXM. It's rad.
Another reading of the movie fits well I believe: Even if Patrick Bateman, as stand in for many yuppies or business suits did not kill explicitly these people, their business usually comes at the cost of other peoples lives, getting low wages or fired has them end up in homelessness or prostitution. Patrick Bateman then sees lower class people with disgust, and only his lifestyle matters to him.
There are so many great little details that connect together in this film. For example, when Patrick first meets with the detective, the detective says someone claims to have seen Paul Allen at a restaurant in London. But after following up, the detective determined that it was a case of mistaken identity. This, of course, casts doubt on the lawyer's claim at the end of the film that he had dinner with Paul Allen in London.
At 6:25, all their cards have "Mergers & Aquisitions" spelled wrong. I don't know if it's a easter Egg, or if it's because no one does any real work, and therefore wouldn't know how to spell it anyways... ROFLMAO At 9:12, Now that you've seen this iconic scene, I really want you to react to the Weird All Yankovich Music video he did with Huey Lewis to promote the aniversary of their album. It's really funny. Finally, No. Patrick is not crazy. He really did kill all those people. I ALWAYS believed it was all real. Because it's based on a book. And in the book it was. In the book they explain it more. But basically his father learns the truth & simply pays off the Land Lord to cover everything up. She repaints so as to not lose money on the apartment. The running gag is that no one can tell anyone apart so the lawyer thinks he had lunch with Paul Allen because he mistook someone else for Paul.
Great reaction! I’ve been on a binge lately watching a ton of reactions to this movie, and you’re the first I’ve seen catch the “Cliff Huxtable” reference 😂 An interesting note about the scene where he kills Jared Leto with the axe, the director actually didn’t tell Jared that was going to happen, and it wasn’t in his copy of the script, so Jared was genuinely shocked when he saw Christian Bale coming at him with an axe lol
One thing I really love in the book that doesn't get used as much in the movie is how Patrick identifies every piece of clothing that a character is wearing when they appear in the narrative. It really helps push the whole idea that no one knows anyone's face, they're all just names and suits to each other, and of course it further emphasizes the consumer culture that defines the 80s. The book was also Brett Easton Ellis's way of coming to grips with how much he had lost his humanity and identity as a part of this yuppie culture. I'd honestly recommend reading the book because it is ultimately a different experience being stuck in Bateman's head
One of the funniest things about the way Patrick describes how people are dressed is, if you actually look up the clothes they're described as wearing, they're all dress like clowns. Really subtle way to foreshadow that everything he experiences in the book might actually just be a delusion.
By the end, we are the crazy ones. Not knowing what's real and what isn't is the idea. This movie puts you in the position of not being sure, of being confused and uncomfortable. And it does it incredibly well.
Was a preview of what to expect from a long line of stellar performances by Bale. Look for HARSH TIMES, a sleeper with arguably the BEST Bale performance ever....
I simply do not understand how somebody can watch this entire movie and be surprised that it took place in the 1980s. There are just so many context clues ... and at one point they literally show the year.
I'm with you, Shanelle. The acting may be great, the directing might be well done, but it's a movie I have absolutely no interest in. And the harder anyone tries to convince me how "great" it is, the less I want to have anything to do with them.
Bateman definitely killed those people, it's not all in his head. The lawyer at the end isn't reliable because he didn't even recognize Bateman. Jared Leto is definitely Paul Allen because we saw his business card, and we know he's dead because we watch Bateman stove his head in with an axe. In fact, going by the business cards, we see that Batemen doesn't get anyone's names wrong even once. We also know that he recognizes the lawyer correctly at the end because he goes up to him and it's the guy he thought it was (ie who has the voicemail). Of all the people in the movie, Bateman is the most reliable when it comes to names and faces. Also, the bit with Paul Allen's apartment being cleaned - it's because the realtor didn't want the value to be hurt by the murders, so it was covered up.
The business card is scene eminently quotable and memable and is a pissing contest in the microcosm of that company. An expert in typefaces analyzed it and said all the font names were meaninglessness.
That dog scene is insanely brutal in the book. As is the prostitute scene. The book is so brutal I almost had to DNF it. The film is very tame in comparison.
here's a take that I think explains a lot - 'american psycho' is ambiguous, There are psychopaths and psychotics - where psychopaths have no deep emotions, use other people as tools, etc, and psychotics which don't have a grasp on reality because their brain plays tricks, hallucinates and otherwise drives the person experiencing it to do more and more erratic things. Patric Bateman is both. His psychosis is fighting with his psychopathy throughout the whole movie, to the point where he makes that phone call to confess (psychotic batemen) but the society he lives in is so psychopathic that others in the society don't want to hear it. And he ultimately obtains his goal of 'fitting in' because his psychopathic side wins and he continues on with his killing spree with no one caring.
The point of his monologue at the end is that he isn't really getting away with it. He exists in hell, totally alone, surrounded only by surfaces he can never connect with or avoid being tortured by. He is totally disposable and forgettable to all of his "friends," we see no evidence of family other than a passing remark by Evelyn, and he admits in the end that he wants nothing good for anyone, ever. Those around him close ranks on his horrors to protect themselves from embarrassment or financial loss. As far as they're concerned, neither he nor anything he did has ever existed. But it exists anyway, so the horror is about nihilism.
The book is much more clear that all of it happened. The book was way more brutal than the movie. American Psycho wasn't just one psycho... It was all of them in general were American Psychos and were all the same people. It shows not just how certain people get away with murder but how they treat others.
The studio wanted anyone but Christian Bale, they wanted a big name and he wasn't big at the time.. DiCaprio was tied to the role, but Bale knew he eventually would pull out.. Bale even passed on other films because he wanted the Patrick Bateman role so badly.. the director desperately wanted Bale as well.. the studio finally reluctantly let Bateman be casted..
In the office when he was leaving a message to the lawyer. Was that Pat without his mask? Was he unveiled at that moment and throughout the scenes before and after? He sort of said earlier that there was nothing underneath but... I have to watch this a few more times. It starts to make sense lol...
I think it's supposed to be unreliable narrator. We're not supposed to know what actually happened, and it isn't clear how much is his desire and how much is him actually going through with it. Fun fact: Willam Dafoe was instructed to do three separate takes of each of the three interviews done with the protagonist, once suspicious, once neutral, and once super accomodating. The director ultimately kept one version of each of the three for each interview in order to keep the audience confused.
In the directors commentary she says she didn't intend for people to think he didn't commit murders. In her words he definitely killed people but the part where he goes manic and sees the feed me a cat and the cop cars blowing up was supposed to show just those scenes as an unreliable narrator and not bring the whole film into question. But I think it works better than it ends up ambitious.
Brilliant film technique and brilliant acting. This caused quite the stir here in Toronto when they were shooting, and much more once it was released. I loved the book so i had to see it. Stunning madness.
The writer of this book also created another work that has Bateman's younger brother, who is also a little type A and borderline delta wolf. The movie is called the Rules of Attraction, with James Van Der Beek playing Bateman, and he's really good. You'd like it
You need to watch the music videos from ice nine kills called hip to be scared. Its all about this movie and us amazing. Its chaotic and melodically awesome and really encapsulats the movie.
This is one of my fav films and a few years ago i noticed something the Business Card Scene the cards ALL have the same Spelling error, they are so focused on the LOOKS of the cards they dont notice the spelling error.
Whether or not any of it was real is not the point of the movie. The film (and the book it's based on) is an indictment of 80s yuppy culture, and of the Reagan era in general. Like that president, and the Wall St. subculture, the character of Patrick Bateman had a painted on smile of optimism that was a facade built to hide a soulless materialism and nihilistic obsession with wealth and status. The homogenizing, dehumanizing effect of this culture was demonstrated by the way they all dressed the same, wore their hair the same, wore glasses with the same frames, to the point where they were often calling each other by the wrong names, as if they couldn't even each other apart.
This is one of the best film adaptations of a book in cinema history. My favorite Bret Easton Ellis movie adaption though is "The Rules of Attraction" which features Patrick Bateman's' younger brother in college. And its written and directed by one of the writers of Pulp Fiction." I would definitely recommend checking that one out when you get the chance.
I cannot emphasize enough how huge the novel was when it came out. Violent satire that was a massive bestseller and as controversial as they come. As others said, the film pales in comparison to the novel, but it's grown on me over the years. Now I absolutely love it. And yes, that 1987 Zagat guide was a new one. It's the 80's, baby.
honestly having a woman direct it is what made it work i think. i'm agnostic on the quality of the novel. i get that he was trying to deaden the reader with both bateman's laborious vapid descriptions of pop culture junk and the extreme brutality of the violence, but it never would have worked as a movie. harron really cut things down to the bone and exposed the main theme, which is that all of these wall street men are extremely empty inside and trying to fill that emptiness with meaningless status symbols and jobs that achieve nothing beyond the ruthless and endless acquisition of more money. even bateman's murderousness is just the general vibe of sociopathy and misogyny taken to its extreme. and yes, the movie is still very relevant today. the clothes and style and speech of these dudes may have changed in 35 years, but there are still plenty of soulless people out there looking to screw us all over for another buck.
Bale was so perfect for this part, and fought to get it, and get it again when the studio initially replaced the director (with Oliver Stone I think) and then wanted Leonardo DiCaprio in the role. But it all worked out in the end and Mary Harron's direction was great. Notably she had Willam DeFoe do 3 takes for each interaction with Bateman, one where his character didn't think Bateman did it, one where he was unsure and one where he suspected or thought Bateman was guilty and then put them together in editing.
Inthe 80s, you could rack up some hefty fees if you didn't return your video tapes on time. The realization that they're due in an hour and the rush to return them was very real, making "I need to return some video tapes" a very valid 80s excuse to duck out.
Seriously, if you've ever had to pay late fees to Blockbuster you understand how valid this excuse really is.
I remember having to switch to another video store to avoid paying all the late fees I'd accumulated!
Never mind late if you lost one it was hundreds of dollars lol I found one 10 yrs later 😂
For the normal working class, that is true. But, this is a black comedy about a group of Wall St. yuppies who routinely pay hundreds of dollars for just lunch. So, "late fees" for videotapes would hardly be breaking the bank. It's just a funny line, like Bateman's other excuses for wanting to leave an awkward situation, like having a fake meeting with Cliff Huckstable (Bill Cosby).
@@kevinramsey417 we still have Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire 😂. No debt or anything.
One thing no one seems to realize or at least talk about is that all the "opinions" Patrick has (about music, society, etc.) are not his own, they're actually from articles and reviews he reads. That's why they're all so eloquent and deep. Patrick has no sense of self and therefore no actual opinion about anything (at least not positive ones) other than serial killers (the only time he shows genuine emotion is when he talks about Ted Bundy or Ed Gein).
Actually he gets the Ed Gein Quote WRONG, it was Edmund Kemperer the Co ed Killer who said that not Gein
@@Greenwood4727 not really relevant. The point is, he lights up when he talks about serial killers, it's the only time he shows real emotion, any other emotion he shows is either disgust, or fake.
@@Enrique-Garcia well i would say it was, he is obviously a fan of serial killers, and he has to be perfect the best, he misquoted about gein, maybe he read it was gein but for his personality it shows a lot about him
He also looks disappointed when Jean asks "who's Ted Bundy", like he was hoping to share a moment with her.
He was virtue signaling before it was cool.
Very nice. Now let’s see Paul Allen’s reaction video.
The sweating on que is magnificent
@ComedyTV It's low hanging fruit. I've posted that comment under a few AP reaction videos. It's a quotable movie.
I loved the subtle texturing.
🤣🤣
😂😂😂😂😂
Crazy this film has the Green Goblin
interviewing Batman about the Joker being
missing! 😂
HOLY SHIT ! I never realized that before. AMAZING !!!!
😂😂😂
🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆
you, sir, win the prize.
How have I never realized that before! Amazing.
"I have to return some video tapes." is a plausible 1980s excuse. If you returned the tapes late, or un-rewound you could be charged a fine. Depending on the selection, searching for obscure video tapes to rent could lead you to some far flung places, especially in New York City.
I still use that excuse today.
Renting the player was like renting a car. You had to be over 21, have a driver's licence, and leave a deposit, at least where I lived.
This movie reminds me of the quote "It is no measure of mental well being, to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society".
Perfect.
Who said that?
@@positivelynegative9149 Krishnamurti is credited with saying it.
we do need these movies. ...where everything isnt foreshadowed into boringness.
From your keyboard to god's eyes!
I would argue we need more films like this and less safe, cookie cutter, PG-13 movies with nothing to say.
👍
@@krisbrown6692 Agreed
It is hard to describe why this movie is so great.
It is literally insanity personified. And in the end, you don't know if it's real or not.
It's because of BALE.. You literally cant take your eyes off him the entire time...
The business card scene earned Bale the name "Robo-Actor" from the director, because he could consistently make himself break into a sweat essentially on cue. During that scene, as his character became more agitated in response to being "upstaged" by Paul Allen's business card, Bale somehow managed to perspire at the same point every take.
The use of visuals to make Bateman an unreliable narrator is my favorite part of American Psycho, along with the various takes of Willem Dafoe where he does and doesn't suspect Bateman.
It's a great satire of materialism, yuppie culture, and the idea of 'psychopath as CEO'.
Along that line, I've always wondered: Is Bateman even correct about Paul Allen?
Given how everyone else seems to be confused about who's who, is it possible that Bateman has confused some other random corporate drone with Allen?
@@YourXavier This is an interesting take, but Paul does give Bryce a business card with his name on it, so I think we are meant to think that Jared Leto really is Paul Allen.
Unreliable narrator is key to this movie
@@YourXavier Patrick knows who everyone is I think. He cares so much more than everyone else in his attempts to fit in.
This is a world of conformity where everyone tries to both simultaneously imitate everyone else, while also, paradoxically, trying to be seen as the best among their peers.
This is why, throughout the film, all of the characters are constantly confusing one person for another. They're all vapid and shallow and demonstrate no unique character that make them stand out in a sea of faces. In such a social environment, a true psychopath could easily blend in, because everyone around them is so shallow and myopic in their scope of interest, that someone could commit truly grisly crimes and go completely unnoticed or, at best, have other people actively assist in covering up the crimes out of self-interest.
This is why no one in Patrick's apartment complex reacted to the sounds of someone screaming for her life and a chainsaw buzzing in the hallway. They simply don't care. This is also why the woman in Paul Alan's apartment behaved so strangely and told him sternly to leave. She covered up the crime scene so that the property value of the apartment wouldn't go down.
Patrick Bateman is not the titular psychopath of the film, the 80's yuppie culture that he exists in is. The film is about him gradually coming to the realization that being a bloodthirsty murderer doesn't make him unique in this world that is filled to the gills with unfeeling monsters. He is just another insignificant, albeit exceedingly privileged, cog in this machine that will endlessly facilitate his most savage impulses, or otherwise overlook them entirely.
Excellent observations. Well stated.
Precisely. This is a huge theme throughout the novel.
This sounds like a memorized speech Partick would make.
@justmeeagainn
Eh, it's more cynical in tone, with nowhere near enough empty platitudes. But I get where you're coming from. It's lofty and prose-like writing, I'll cop to that.
It's interesting how the two people who were openly outcasts & who showed genuine emotion/interest towards him, he couldn't kill.
Fun fact: the scene with business cards was where Christian Bale demonstrated to the film crew the fact that he can sweat heavily just by thinking about it.
other fact the cards have a spelling error ALL of them
“Is that a raincoat?”
“Yes it is!” 😂
TRY GETTING A RESERVATION AT DORSIA NOW!
Imagine being 25 years old and being THAT talented...
I don't need to imagine
👀
And béing amazingly sexy🤭😜❤️🌹
Hell, he was that talented in Empire of the Sun and he was 12-13 years old.
This is the real 80s. The one you didn’t see in most 80s Hollywood movies. In those movies, Patrick Bateman would have been the hero. This is all done from Patrick’s perspective and at some point you realize he’s not the most reliable historian.
The "I gotta return some videotapes" is a reference to the days of Blockbuster Video. If you didn't return your tapes on time you were charged a late fee. It was part of daily life in the 80's.
Be kind. Please rewind.
Brett Easton Ellis wrote a satire of yuppie culture in the 80s and the hyper reality that was displayed was meant to convey a general sense of shallowness by all involved. Bale initially was unsure of the role because he said he kept laughing when he read the script. Brett assured him that it was also meant to be seen in a humorous context adding to the general ludicrous nature of Patrick Bateman's life.
I felt the same way you did the first time I watched this movie. The violence and tension was so shocking that I couldn't really appreciate other aspects of the film. On subsequent viewings, I knew what to expect, so it wasn't as shocking. Which allowed me to recognize and appreciate the brilliant satire, social commentary, and dark absurdist humor.
My interpretation is that none of the murders happened. He is a psychopath trying to ‘fit in’ by mimicking the behaviour he thinks he needs to for inhabiting this superficial world he’s in.
I think the movie is him having a psychotic break and losing control of his mind, thinking he’s carrying out his desires externally but it’s all imaginary.
At the end he realises he’s not actually done it and there’s slight disappointment because he’s tired and wants to be judged.
Even though there is an ambiguous ending I think something does change because his secretary has found his diary and now realises how sick he is.
Gotta admit... I *DO* always have the urge to listen to Huey Lewis after this. ... AND THAT'S THE POWER OF LOVE!
Don't need money
Mary Harron - "One thing I think is a failure on my part is people keep coming out of the film thinking that it’s all a dream, and I never intended that. All I wanted was to be ambiguous in the way that the book was. I think it’s a failure of mine in the final scene because I just got the emphasis wrong. I should have left it more open ended. It makes it look like it was all in his head, and as far as I’m concerned, it’s not.”
You’re the first person I’ve seen actually disturbed by this film. I’m sure you’re not alone. I saw it shortly after it was released on VHS and it’s one of my favorite movies to this day. I took it as a satire on yuppie culture of the 80s as well as a dark comedy. I found Patrick hilarious 🤷♀️
That’s exactly what the film is so you are perceiving it as intended. I like Shanelle and think her reactions and commentary are typically very spot on and insightful but she totally whiffed on the tone of the movie. If you’re not laughing your ass off at most of these scenes you’re doing it wrong.
That's absolutely what it is but yeah idk, depending on your personality you may find the depiction of people and acts this awful repulsive even if it's a satire and you're aware of it. Personally, I find it both horrifying and funny, but I definitely wouldn't judge anyone for having an awful experience with it.
I found it creepy too, but I read a lot about disorders so it felt to me more like what a person with a personality disorder might be going through. I guess 2000 is a bit too late to comment on yuppie culture for some, especially since those types still exist. I can see how it's a comment on "fake" people who are more obsessed with the perception of others - again, could make the same movie about certain people today.
@@rjay-d2335 Or, maybe you're a psycho if you DID laugh at this film.
Yeah for the longest time I typically could never watch the movie in full because of how disturbing I found it in its entirety... Despite also considering it to be absolutely hilarious.
This is such an interesting film. It’s more of a character study and a dark comedy. Many people think it’s just a horror movie. The book is amazing as well
I absolutely love to book.
This movie is comedy gold.
Laughing at rich yuppies just feels so satisfying.
I like to think of this movie as an analogy for bigger businessmen and how ruthless they are in their ego trips, to the point where as a class they can get away with murder (sometimes literally), but even if someone were to blow the whistle on things it wouldn't matter. I also like the scene where he tells Jean to leave; the movie is sure to let us know how good and innocent (read: pure) Jean is as a person, it feels like the reason Patrick likes her is because she is authentic, but his view of her innocence starts to dim when he realizes she wants to go to Dorsia, or otherwise partake in the shallowness of his culture. I think he tells her to leave because despite being wealthy and seen as high-class, he knows it's poison and doesn't want her to live that kind of life.
Or I'm way off idk haha
Weird Al made a sketch with Huey Lewis recreating the scene where Christian Bale murders Jared Leto while talking about Huey Lewis. It was very meta and very hilarious.
Your reaction is quite interesting. Most people laugh because they find the absurdity funny, but you had a very straight emotional reaction to it.
"I get why it was made at the time but I don't really see a need for this anymore"
On the contrary, I'd say its message about callous materialism is as relevant today as it was when it was written. In both the book and the movie Bateman frequently fawns over his hero: Donald Trump- who Bateman's character was inspired by.
I’ve only seen reference from Ellis to himself and his father being inspirations for Patrick Bateman. Tom Cruise is also cited by Bale as inspiration for his performance itself.
I do however completely agree this is an extremely relevant theme today. Narcissism and materialism is just as rampant today if not worse.
No.
The scene where he asks his secretary out to dinner is my favorite. He wears sunglasses because he's trying so hard to "hide" his psychopathy. Deep down he knows his desires are wrong and he wants to hide them so bad. When she gets to his place, he tries so desperately not to act on those desires, and eventually succeeds. It's truly a mentally exhaustive struggle for him to not kill her.
This is my take:
The movie is at its core -- merely a satire.
The world that Patrick Bateman exists in is one where everyone is so self-absorbed that they don't even remember the names of their closest friends.
It is in some ways, just a kind of an Orwellian fictional nightmare scenario where everyone has become full-blown sociopaths.
But they play it for laughs, all while showing the disturbing reality of such a world.
While there are obviously some things that are all in Bateman's head (blowing up a police car with a gun and seeing "feed me a stray cat") -- much of his killing is really happening. He's getting away with it all because no one really cares.
If I'm repeating anyone, apologies.
Essentially, it's Wall Street meets Psycho, Gordon Gecko meets Norman Bates. It's a commentary on the decade's conservatism, greed, and commercialism represented by the yuppies in the movie. Even professionals outside that world and observant people whose specific job is to reign criminal excess in still find ways to overlook and/or excuse the bullshit. From all of that, I've always taken the meaning of the movie to be that maybe all, some or none of the events happened, but it doesn't matter. We were heading down a road where more powerful people were finding it easier to be shitty in real damaging ways. So, maybe it's not a serial killer, but it might actually be worse.
Or that's not anything, who the hell knows what anything is.😅
Also, maybe don't watch Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer.
It was directed by a woman, and written by two women as well.
But muh narrative...
Satire is lost on so many.
Some of the murder scenes in the book were absolutely horrifying! This movie was so tame compared to the book killings.
The film is about the yuppie culture and narcissism. It's about how all of those guys are virtually indistinguishable from one another and it plays on that. Their suits, haircuts, glasses, etc... Notice how they constantly get mistaken for one another too. Like, they're all vice-presidents on their business cards lmao. Anyhow, whether or not Patrick committed all of those murders is up for interpretation. The ending essentially shows that in that type of world nobody cares or people are simply willing to look the other way. It ties back to the beginning where Patrick says he simply is not there, and it's almost like he isn't. He's just another guy floating amongst everybody else. Often unseen or overlooked.
I love how every reactor is always “not the dog” while a person is dying. Maybe not the person.
It's just a black homeless guy. Chill out.
I feel bad for Al, too!
I think about this every time I see a John Wick reaction too.
@@justmeeagainn 👴🏻
Most folks today just simply have more sympathy for animals
If you want to see Christian Bale transform himself, watch The Machinist. It's the role that nearly broke him.
And me, watching him in that film. Took me a couple days to recover.
@@muffinamy83 it is a rough one
7:27 I don't know who's the psycho, him or you guys! All you guys worry about fricking dog, while a human was stabbed to death.
It was meant to be a comedy, baby - but, if you want a deeper analysis, here it is:-
"When you seek purpose in a life devoid of it, your mind can conjure it up, even if it's not what you intended." (c) AlleyKatPr0
11:00 - Yeah, him and Vincent D'Onofrio. You should see D'Onofrio on Full Metal Jacket and Adventures In Babysitting. Now *THAT'S* a remarkable transformation.
Christian Bale was only 25 when filming began in February of 1999, although he had been training for 6 months to get in shape. Also, "I have to return some videotapes" isn't code for anything. Back in the late 80s, blockbuster was how we watched movies, and people would rent video tapes multiple times per week! The problem was, you would pay $2 for a rental, but every day you were late returning it, they charged you another 2 bucks. So Sometimes you spent more renting a movie than it would have cost you to see it in a theater. I remember once I ended up with $36 in late fees for renting Beverley Hills Cop 2 and good Morning Vietnam. I could have taken a date to both movies in the theater for roughly the same price!
22:23 - "...that made me so uncomfortable!" The hallmark of great cinema. If you don't unsettle your audience, at the very least once, you're doing it wrong.
The author of American Psycho also wrote “Less Than Zero” which was turned into an amazing film with Robert Downy Jr and “The Rules of Attraction” which didn’t stick to staying in the 1980’s and unfortunately didn’t live up to the other two films.
Mary Harron directed this film brilliantly!!! Christian Bale nailed the novel’s macabre/ satirical tone 💯🎬😈🪓
When she was doing her preview she was explaining "Falling Down " a great must watch movie.
I don't believe I've seen a top row on a Reactors channel that's more full of Classics than on this channel at this moment.
You're a Real One, Shanelle. 👍✌❤
A brilliant satire on the 80’s NY culture. That scene in the apt at the end, that’s literally the real estate market in NYC - to this day, gotta find those apartments! Thanks for getting through this, totally agree with you at the end there - I think in this culture here it CAN happen, and probably all did (cept for the atm+ sequence) . If this was too much for you stay away from the book - that’s x10 more disturbing, great satire but boy, hard to stomach a lot of it.
You kids will never understand the imperative duty of returning VHS rentals in the 1980's
great film, when people ask where i am going or why im leaving i say " i need to return some video tapes" ... sometimes, believe the directors said the ending did actually happen . "won't be prosecuted for his crimes based on his affluence and high-society station"
Hands down my favorite comedy of all time
Comedy 😂😂😂 youve got a sick mind if you think its a comedy
@Philip Moore how can you not laugh? It's hysterical. Christian bale even calls it a comedy. But you're not wrong, ie call it a dark sense of humor
@@kingjellybean9795 yes i do think some scenes are funny hip to be square comes to mind
As weird and a little confusing it may be, I find it to be a bit poetic in some parts when he’s narrating, and there are many theories as to what exactly happened which makes it more interesting
Shan, when you said you were ready for this at the beginning - I was like, ummm...girl, you sure?
When filming this, they had intended to film at the dorsia but it's so exclusive they couldn't get a reservation
Huey Lewis and Weird Al did a Spoof on that very scene where Bale kills Leto, its on youtube its great when actors/
singers acknowledge and go along with the gag
This is one of the best comedies of all time wtf
I always wanted to see your reaction to Requiem for a Dream.. it's one of the best films of the 2000s.. but after watching your reaction to this film I don't think you'd be able to handle it.. they're completely different films, but if you thought this was hard to watch then I can't imagine how hard Requiem for a Dream would be for you.. it's a masterpiece and has masterclass filmmaking and acting.. I still highly recommend it and it'll also get views, it always does.. it's a film that everyone should see at least once..
Requiem for a Dream is a gratuitous piece of junk.
@@justmeeagainn lol no it's not, but to each their own..
It’s funny I saw him in Empire of the sun then next time was this movie and remember thinking wow that’s that kid! Thanks Shanelle!
A lot of people praise this movie for having an ambiguous ending, but I always felt it gets that more from being rushed than intentional. It's too difficult to compress this book into a film. This is a story that would be better suited to a mini-series from a major streaming service like HBO.
The first interview between the detective and Bateman was filmed two times. One with suspicion and one without suspicion. They cut the two interviews together and it is really confusing to see both attitudes in the same scene.
I read it was 3 times.
One suspicious. One natural. One innocent.
@@NeilLewis77 correct it was three.
The time period was obvious, but maybe not even to someone in her 30s. Even though whatever you read stated the movie was set in 1987, Patrick said he was listening to the new Robert Palmer album while "Simply Irresistible" played, which was released in 1988. The detective had a "new" Huey Lewis and the News CD, although it was new in 1986. Reagan's speech at the end was from 1987.
In the book, Patrick ran into Tom Cruise in the elevator and complimented him on the summer 1988 movie "Cocktail."
There were not enough references to the time period simply because brands did not give their permission. I guess it was easier to know for those of us alive then.
Yeeeeesssss!!! This is my favorite Christian Bale role. Then Empire of the Sun and The Prestige. The monolog at the end when he is going nuts is AMAZING. it reminds me of the end of Rambo. I used to watch this while tripping on DXM. It's rad.
Another reading of the movie fits well I believe: Even if Patrick Bateman, as stand in for many yuppies or business suits did not kill explicitly these people, their business usually comes at the cost of other peoples lives, getting low wages or fired has them end up in homelessness or prostitution. Patrick Bateman then sees lower class people with disgust, and only his lifestyle matters to him.
There are so many great little details that connect together in this film. For example, when Patrick first meets with the detective, the detective says someone claims to have seen Paul Allen at a restaurant in London. But after following up, the detective determined that it was a case of mistaken identity. This, of course, casts doubt on the lawyer's claim at the end of the film that he had dinner with Paul Allen in London.
At 6:25, all their cards have "Mergers & Aquisitions" spelled wrong. I don't know if it's a easter Egg, or if it's because no one does any real work, and therefore wouldn't know how to spell it anyways... ROFLMAO
At 9:12, Now that you've seen this iconic scene, I really want you to react to the Weird All Yankovich Music video he did with Huey Lewis to promote the aniversary of their album. It's really funny.
Finally, No. Patrick is not crazy. He really did kill all those people. I ALWAYS believed it was all real. Because it's based on a book. And in the book it was. In the book they explain it more. But basically his father learns the truth & simply pays off the Land Lord to cover everything up. She repaints so as to not lose money on the apartment. The running gag is that no one can tell anyone apart so the lawyer thinks he had lunch with Paul Allen because he mistook someone else for Paul.
If you want some easier fare that’s more your speed try: Hedwig and the Angry Inch (2001), Oscar (1991), Grand Budapest Hotel (2014)
Great reaction! I’ve been on a binge lately watching a ton of reactions to this movie, and you’re the first I’ve seen catch the “Cliff Huxtable” reference 😂
An interesting note about the scene where he kills Jared Leto with the axe, the director actually didn’t tell Jared that was going to happen, and it wasn’t in his copy of the script, so Jared was genuinely shocked when he saw Christian Bale coming at him with an axe lol
Bari Weiss is watching American Psycho.
One thing I really love in the book that doesn't get used as much in the movie is how Patrick identifies every piece of clothing that a character is wearing when they appear in the narrative. It really helps push the whole idea that no one knows anyone's face, they're all just names and suits to each other, and of course it further emphasizes the consumer culture that defines the 80s. The book was also Brett Easton Ellis's way of coming to grips with how much he had lost his humanity and identity as a part of this yuppie culture. I'd honestly recommend reading the book because it is ultimately a different experience being stuck in Bateman's head
One of the funniest things about the way Patrick describes how people are dressed is, if you actually look up the clothes they're described as wearing, they're all dress like clowns. Really subtle way to foreshadow that everything he experiences in the book might actually just be a delusion.
By the end, we are the crazy ones.
Not knowing what's real and what isn't is the idea. This movie puts you in the position of not being sure, of being confused and uncomfortable. And it does it incredibly well.
You're the only reactor I noticed who caught the "Cliff Huxtable" line
This was set in the 80s. Returning some video tapes is a good excuse to leave. Everyone could relate
Was a preview of what to expect from a long line of stellar performances by Bale. Look for HARSH TIMES, a sleeper with arguably the BEST Bale performance ever....
"Don't just stare at it, react to it!"
I simply do not understand how somebody can watch this entire movie and be surprised that it took place in the 1980s. There are just so many context clues ... and at one point they literally show the year.
I'm with you, Shanelle. The acting may be great, the directing might be well done, but it's a movie I have absolutely no interest in. And the harder anyone tries to convince me how "great" it is, the less I want to have anything to do with them.
sucks to be you
Bateman definitely killed those people, it's not all in his head. The lawyer at the end isn't reliable because he didn't even recognize Bateman. Jared Leto is definitely Paul Allen because we saw his business card, and we know he's dead because we watch Bateman stove his head in with an axe. In fact, going by the business cards, we see that Batemen doesn't get anyone's names wrong even once. We also know that he recognizes the lawyer correctly at the end because he goes up to him and it's the guy he thought it was (ie who has the voicemail). Of all the people in the movie, Bateman is the most reliable when it comes to names and faces. Also, the bit with Paul Allen's apartment being cleaned - it's because the realtor didn't want the value to be hurt by the murders, so it was covered up.
The business card is scene eminently quotable and memable and is a pissing contest in the microcosm of that company.
An expert in typefaces analyzed it and said all the font names were meaninglessness.
That dog scene is insanely brutal in the book. As is the prostitute scene. The book is so brutal I almost had to DNF it. The film is very tame in comparison.
I need that book.
here's a take that I think explains a lot - 'american psycho' is ambiguous, There are psychopaths and psychotics - where psychopaths have no deep emotions, use other people as tools, etc, and psychotics which don't have a grasp on reality because their brain plays tricks, hallucinates and otherwise drives the person experiencing it to do more and more erratic things.
Patric Bateman is both. His psychosis is fighting with his psychopathy throughout the whole movie, to the point where he makes that phone call to confess (psychotic batemen) but the society he lives in is so psychopathic that others in the society don't want to hear it. And he ultimately obtains his goal of 'fitting in' because his psychopathic side wins and he continues on with his killing spree with no one caring.
The point of his monologue at the end is that he isn't really getting away with it. He exists in hell, totally alone, surrounded only by surfaces he can never connect with or avoid being tortured by. He is totally disposable and forgettable to all of his "friends," we see no evidence of family other than a passing remark by Evelyn, and he admits in the end that he wants nothing good for anyone, ever. Those around him close ranks on his horrors to protect themselves from embarrassment or financial loss. As far as they're concerned, neither he nor anything he did has ever existed. But it exists anyway, so the horror is about nihilism.
The book is much more clear that all of it happened. The book was way more brutal than the movie. American Psycho wasn't just one psycho... It was all of them in general were American Psychos and were all the same people. It shows not just how certain people get away with murder but how they treat others.
In The Rules of Attraction James Van der Beek plays Patrick's younger brother, Sean Bateman, at college.
The studio wanted anyone but Christian Bale, they wanted a big name and he wasn't big at the time.. DiCaprio was tied to the role, but Bale knew he eventually would pull out.. Bale even passed on other films because he wanted the Patrick Bateman role so badly.. the director desperately wanted Bale as well.. the studio finally reluctantly let Bateman be casted..
In the office when he was leaving a message to the lawyer. Was that Pat without his mask? Was he unveiled at that moment and throughout the scenes before and after? He sort of said earlier that there was nothing underneath but... I have to watch this a few more times. It starts to make sense lol...
Shanelle, if you found this film difficult to watch, do not read the book....this is tame compared to the mental pictures you will have.
I think it's supposed to be unreliable narrator. We're not supposed to know what actually happened, and it isn't clear how much is his desire and how much is him actually going through with it. Fun fact: Willam Dafoe was instructed to do three separate takes of each of the three interviews done with the protagonist, once suspicious, once neutral, and once super accomodating. The director ultimately kept one version of each of the three for each interview in order to keep the audience confused.
In the directors commentary she says she didn't intend for people to think he didn't commit murders. In her words he definitely killed people but the part where he goes manic and sees the feed me a cat and the cop cars blowing up was supposed to show just those scenes as an unreliable narrator and not bring the whole film into question. But I think it works better than it ends up ambitious.
In the book these murders really happened. The director later said she felt bad for making the ending so ambiguous.
Brilliant film technique and brilliant acting. This caused quite the stir here in Toronto when they were shooting, and much more once it was released. I loved the book so i had to see it. Stunning madness.
The writer of this book also created another work that has Bateman's younger brother, who is also a little type A and borderline delta wolf. The movie is called the Rules of Attraction, with James Van Der Beek playing Bateman, and he's really good. You'd like it
If I remember the books correctly the main character in Less Than Zero is a background character in Rules as well.
“That’s bone” … one of the many great lines
“There is no catharsis. This confession has meant nothing.”
That’s our financial system in a nutshell.
The main character of The Rules of Attraction is Patrick’s brother in the books
You need to watch the music videos from ice nine kills called hip to be scared. Its all about this movie and us amazing. Its chaotic and melodically awesome and really encapsulats the movie.
This is one of my fav films and a few years ago i noticed something the Business Card Scene the cards ALL have the same Spelling error, they are so focused on the LOOKS of the cards they dont notice the spelling error.
Whether or not any of it was real is not the point of the movie. The film (and the book it's based on) is an indictment of 80s yuppy culture, and of the Reagan era in general. Like that president, and the Wall St. subculture, the character of Patrick Bateman had a painted on smile of optimism that was a facade built to hide a soulless materialism and nihilistic obsession with wealth and status. The homogenizing, dehumanizing effect of this culture was demonstrated by the way they all dressed the same, wore their hair the same, wore glasses with the same frames, to the point where they were often calling each other by the wrong names, as if they couldn't even each other apart.
This is one of the best film adaptations of a book in cinema history. My favorite Bret Easton Ellis movie adaption though is "The Rules of Attraction" which features Patrick Bateman's' younger brother in college. And its written and directed by one of the writers of Pulp Fiction." I would definitely recommend checking that one out when you get the chance.
This movie is a critique of capitalism. Specifically the idea of Reaganism, it’s important to know about politics when doing media analysis.
I cannot emphasize enough how huge the novel was when it came out. Violent satire that was a massive bestseller and as controversial as they come. As others said, the film pales in comparison to the novel, but it's grown on me over the years. Now I absolutely love it.
And yes, that 1987 Zagat guide was a new one. It's the 80's, baby.
honestly having a woman direct it is what made it work i think. i'm agnostic on the quality of the novel. i get that he was trying to deaden the reader with both bateman's laborious vapid descriptions of pop culture junk and the extreme brutality of the violence, but it never would have worked as a movie. harron really cut things down to the bone and exposed the main theme, which is that all of these wall street men are extremely empty inside and trying to fill that emptiness with meaningless status symbols and jobs that achieve nothing beyond the ruthless and endless acquisition of more money. even bateman's murderousness is just the general vibe of sociopathy and misogyny taken to its extreme. and yes, the movie is still very relevant today. the clothes and style and speech of these dudes may have changed in 35 years, but there are still plenty of soulless people out there looking to screw us all over for another buck.
12:29 - Oh yeah! I SO knew you'd wear that look on your face at this point! 😂
Bale was so perfect for this part, and fought to get it, and get it again when the studio initially replaced the director (with Oliver Stone I think) and then wanted Leonardo DiCaprio in the role. But it all worked out in the end and Mary Harron's direction was great. Notably she had Willam DeFoe do 3 takes for each interaction with Bateman, one where his character didn't think Bateman did it, one where he was unsure and one where he suspected or thought Bateman was guilty and then put them together in editing.