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
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).
"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.
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.
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.
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.”
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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. 👍✌❤
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.
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.
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...
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
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.
Patrick used the wealth to relocate to Gotham and take Bruce Way's place after killing him in a remote League of Shadows location. Paul Allen actually was not killed and became a tattooed Joker
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.
When I watched this film I saw all the people in his world as soulless drones, and cared nothing about their deaths, but when he killed that homeless person and the prostitute from the street they were the only deaths that affected me. Upon rewatching I came to the conclusion that they were the only ones he actually killed.
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.
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
So this movie is actually a satire. As a woman, I still find it hilarious…and I personally think it’s in his head. He’s a big movie fan but pretty much a loser so he recreates “movies” with him as the star: porn, action, horror. That notebook his secretary found wasn’t of things he did but things he imagined he did. This is a constant debate though among fans and even the author of the book! But I’m sticking with my theory that he never killed anybody 😊
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.
"Oh my god: 27! -- he looks 36. (He was only 25 WTF!!!)" LMAO!! Yeah, the violence in Fight Club the novel makes the movie violence look like a Disney Pixar film; but American Psycho book violence makes the movie violence look like Blue's Clues.
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"
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
The movie adaptation of the book takes away a very important aspect, no one is described by how they look. They only measure each other by for instance business cards, or where they work etc. The book also leaves the ending even more ambiguous. A clue that he isn’t delusional is found in Rules of Attraction, the book not the movie. Patrick visits his brother Sean, who notices some red spots on his sleeve. He speculates if it might be blood. (Someone please correct me if it’s from The Informers…) Ellis has used some characters in more than one book.
He was killing for real, but on Wall Street everyone looks the same - glasses, suits, haircuts. Even their cards looks simillar. That's why they can't distinguish one from another and that's why they don't know they are talking to Bateman, calls him a dork etc. So Kimble couldn't establish what really happened, because some people thought they saw Paul Allen and so they said this to him.
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..
"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.
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.
As uneasy as the movie makes people, the book is 100 times worse. It's about 1/4 long super detailed descriptions of the material things he owns or covets, and another 1/4 super long detailed descriptions of his murders and what he does with the body parts. It's... deeply unsettling.
The fact that the audience is confused and unsure what is and what isn't reality pairs with the mind of the main character. Was that the whole goal the Director was seeking?
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.
His journal is a storyboard? I'm blue collar, so I know a chainsaw will cease running when you let it go, and you never see him reload during his maniacal spree. "I'm not there" "This confession means nothing" Cues that it's all in his head? I'm not sure, I just know I'm now feeling guilty for using avocado clay and retinol cream on my face, John Wayne would never do that. I prefer to remember Bale as the slain squire being carried off the battlefield by Henry V, not this painful, accurate interpretation of an American yuppy. I'm like you Miss Shan, I need to shake this off. I think I'll return some video tapes.
i might be able to convince you that we still need this, let's see if i can also be brief... viewers go in with the assumption that it's about an American that is a Psycho. while the narration dances around questions they might have, like "why?". as the movie progresses it pushes you to start questioning everyone other than the main character. perhaps the focus is on how a society can not only allow someone like this to exist and act freely, but even somehow passively-aggressively participate in supporting him... or how America can tolerate a Psycho.
There is this one really amazing and creepy movie that will make you feel uncomfortable, similar to American Psycho. This movie is called Perfume: The Story of a Murderer (2006). Add it to your watchlist. You won't regret it.
Watched this in high school. Loved it. Laugh riot. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to return some video tapes. Then 8:30 res at Dorsia -- EXCELLENT sea urchin ceviche.
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.
If you find this movie disturbing, stay away from the book as far as you can… it is way, way more graphic. But it also dives much deeper into Bateman‘s psyche. It is a fascinating book to read, but not in public places - people peeking over your shoulder and reading just one paragraph might take you for a psycho for reading this :)
19:05 - Hehehe, you're catching on! But it was made clear since he killed the prostitutes. One guy saw him chasing a screaming woman with a chainsaw. Later he goes on that absurd killing spree ...where he happened to cause both patrol cars to explode? I mean, the cops would've arrested him before dawn. Unless, it was all in his head! 😉
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.
Psychopaths don't have normal human emotions, so they try to mimic the emotions of the people around them. The people around him, however, were all phonies although at least one may also have been a psychopath (not all psychopaths are violent). Since they are all effectively shallow non-entities pretending to people people they are not, he is driven crazy with frustration. He fits in, only so far as he becomes unremarkable and invisible. The murder scenes are so incredible I don't believe any of them happened. The high status apartment he lives in would have been full, and someone would have heard a chainsaw. There is no way he would have escaped his murder spree. You should watch Christian Bale in 'Empire of the Sun,' and 'The Machinist,' next.
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.
first: you should not read the book. it is WAY more graphic (but also alot deeper with the commentary). second: the director mary harron did a brilliant job in adapting the novel very subtlely (not sure, if that is the right word, not a native speaker). there are so many interesting points that can be discussed and interpreted.
The book is way better in almost every way. But I agree that if you are sensible to extreme violence, you should not read it. The movie conveys the themes well enough.
Regarding "Vice President". There is a massive title inflation in that industry, I believe that Goldman Sachs has over 15.000 vice presidents. Vice president it's a pretty mid-range position. Several of my friends have that exact title, and they are far from being in the second highest position.
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.
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.
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
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.
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 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
A professionally made business card. No 80's Yuppie was ever without one.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ah yes. I remember the 80's quite well.
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.”
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
Your reaction is quite interesting. Most people laugh because they find the absurdity funny, but you had a very straight emotional reaction to it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
I think this is a perfectly crafted film and is one of my fav movies ever. Great reaction.
This movie is comedy gold.
Laughing at rich yuppies just feels so satisfying.
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.
When filming this, they had intended to film at the dorsia but it's so exclusive they couldn't get a reservation
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.
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.
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.
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.
Shan, when you said you were ready for this at the beginning - I was like, ummm...girl, you sure?
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. 👍✌❤
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.
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.
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...
It was directed by a woman, and written by two women as well.
But muh narrative...
Satire is lost on so many.
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
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.
Patrick used the wealth to relocate to Gotham and take Bruce Way's place after killing him in a remote League of Shadows location. Paul Allen actually was not killed and became a tattooed Joker
Some of the murder scenes in the book were absolutely horrifying! This movie was so tame compared to the book killings.
"No one knows anyone,
they don't even just pretend."
-Bowie
"I'm Afraid of Americans"
When she was doing her preview she was explaining "Falling Down " a great must watch movie.
You kids will never understand the imperative duty of returning VHS rentals in the 1980's
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.
When I watched this film I saw all the people in his world as soulless drones, and cared nothing about their deaths, but when he killed that homeless person and the prostitute from the street they were the only deaths that affected me. Upon rewatching I came to the conclusion that they were the only ones he actually killed.
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.
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
This movie is a critique of capitalism. Specifically the idea of Reaganism, it’s important to know about politics when doing media analysis.
In The Rules of Attraction James Van der Beek plays Patrick's younger brother, Sean Bateman, at college.
So this movie is actually a satire. As a woman, I still find it hilarious…and I personally think it’s in his head. He’s a big movie fan but pretty much a loser so he recreates “movies” with him as the star: porn, action, horror. That notebook his secretary found wasn’t of things he did but things he imagined he did. This is a constant debate though among fans and even the author of the book! But I’m sticking with my theory that he never killed anybody 😊
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.
fun fact: Gloria Steinem the famous feminist icon hated the book. By strange coincidence her stepson Christian Bale ended up playing Bateman
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
"Oh my god: 27! -- he looks 36. (He was only 25 WTF!!!)" LMAO!!
Yeah, the violence in Fight Club the novel makes the movie violence look like a Disney Pixar film; but American Psycho book violence makes the movie violence look like Blue's Clues.
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"
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
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
The movie adaptation of the book takes away a very important aspect, no one is described by how they look. They only measure each other by for instance business cards, or where they work etc. The book also leaves the ending even more ambiguous. A clue that he isn’t delusional is found in Rules of Attraction, the book not the movie. Patrick visits his brother Sean, who notices some red spots on his sleeve. He speculates if it might be blood.
(Someone please correct me if it’s from The Informers…)
Ellis has used some characters in more than one book.
He was killing for real, but on Wall Street everyone looks the same - glasses, suits, haircuts. Even their cards looks simillar. That's why they can't distinguish one from another and that's why they don't know they are talking to Bateman, calls him a dork etc. So Kimble couldn't establish what really happened, because some people thought they saw Paul Allen and so they said this to him.
The main character of The Rules of Attraction is Patrick’s brother in the books
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!
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..
12:29 - Oh yeah! I SO knew you'd wear that look on your face at this point! 😂
"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.
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.
Bari Weiss is watching American Psycho.
A movie of a psychopath SHOULD leave you confused and uncomfortable.
As uneasy as the movie makes people, the book is 100 times worse. It's about 1/4 long super detailed descriptions of the material things he owns or covets, and another 1/4 super long detailed descriptions of his murders and what he does with the body parts. It's... deeply unsettling.
You're the only reactor I noticed who caught the "Cliff Huxtable" line
This is one of the best comedies of all time wtf
The fact that the audience is confused and unsure what is and what isn't reality pairs with the mind of the main character. Was that the whole goal the Director was seeking?
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.
His journal is a storyboard? I'm blue collar, so I know a chainsaw will cease running when you let it go, and you never see him reload during his maniacal spree. "I'm not there" "This confession means nothing" Cues that it's all in his head? I'm not sure, I just know I'm now feeling guilty for using avocado clay and retinol cream on my face, John Wayne would never do that. I prefer to remember Bale as the slain squire being carried off the battlefield by Henry V, not this painful, accurate interpretation of an American yuppy. I'm like you Miss Shan, I need to shake this off. I think I'll return some video tapes.
i might be able to convince you that we still need this, let's see if i can also be brief... viewers go in with the assumption that it's about an American that is a Psycho. while the narration dances around questions they might have, like "why?". as the movie progresses it pushes you to start questioning everyone other than the main character. perhaps the focus is on how a society can not only allow someone like this to exist and act freely, but even somehow passively-aggressively participate in supporting him... or how America can tolerate a Psycho.
There is this one really amazing and creepy movie that will make you feel uncomfortable, similar to American Psycho. This movie is called Perfume: The Story of a Murderer (2006). Add it to your watchlist. You won't regret it.
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
“That’s bone” … one of the many great lines
Watched this in high school. Loved it. Laugh riot. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to return some video tapes. Then 8:30 res at Dorsia -- EXCELLENT sea urchin ceviche.
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.
If you find this movie disturbing, stay away from the book as far as you can… it is way, way more graphic. But it also dives much deeper into Bateman‘s psyche. It is a fascinating book to read, but not in public places - people peeking over your shoulder and reading just one paragraph might take you for a psycho for reading this :)
19:05 - Hehehe, you're catching on! But it was made clear since he killed the prostitutes. One guy saw him chasing a screaming woman with a chainsaw. Later he goes on that absurd killing spree ...where he happened to cause both patrol cars to explode? I mean, the cops would've arrested him before dawn. Unless, it was all in his head! 😉
If you found the film disturbing then do not, under any circumstances, read the book.
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.
This was set in the 80s. Returning some video tapes is a good excuse to leave. Everyone could relate
My idea is that if there isn't a drawing in his book, then it happened.
Psychopaths don't have normal human emotions, so they try to mimic the emotions of the people around them. The people around him, however, were all phonies although at least one may also have been a psychopath (not all psychopaths are violent). Since they are all effectively shallow non-entities pretending to people people they are not, he is driven crazy with frustration. He fits in, only so far as he becomes unremarkable and invisible. The murder scenes are so incredible I don't believe any of them happened. The high status apartment he lives in would have been full, and someone would have heard a chainsaw. There is no way he would have escaped his murder spree.
You should watch Christian Bale in 'Empire of the Sun,' and 'The Machinist,' next.
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.
first:
you should not read the book. it is WAY more graphic (but also alot deeper with the commentary).
second:
the director mary harron did a brilliant job in adapting the novel very subtlely (not sure, if that is the right word, not a native speaker). there are so many interesting points that can be discussed and interpreted.
The book is way better in almost every way. But I agree that if you are sensible to extreme violence, you should not read it. The movie conveys the themes well enough.
@@fabriciorosso9807yes, well, it's the book. i can't really think of any movie with the book not being way better than its adaptation.
Regarding "Vice President". There is a massive title inflation in that industry, I believe that Goldman Sachs has over 15.000 vice presidents. Vice president it's a pretty mid-range position. Several of my friends have that exact title, and they are far from being in the second highest position.
If you want some easier fare that’s more your speed try: Hedwig and the Angry Inch (2001), Oscar (1991), Grand Budapest Hotel (2014)