Rate the Last Movie You Watched

T2A` said:

Ben Affleck is a better director than he is an actor, IMO.

Click to expand...

SirYawnalot said:

Spoiler

It's funny, the possibility of the murders all being in Bateman's mind never even occurred to me when I watched the film - and I've seen it two or three times. However, last time I saw it, the person I was watching it with came away with your interpretation, and we had an argument about it. Anyway, the truth, as copy/pasted from IMDB's FAQ...


The answer is that yes, Patrick Bateman did commit the murders. His peers (who often confused his identity with others anyway) were so shallow and focused on themselves that they didn't even notice.

Bret Easton Ellis, the author of the original book, argues that if none of the murders actually happened, that the entire point of the novel would be rendered moot. He has stated that the novel was intended to satirize the shallow, impersonal mindset of yuppie America in the late 1980s.

Director Mary Harron (in a Charlie Rose interview) and co-screenwriter Guinevere Turner (in the DVD commentary) have both stated explicitly that the murders were in fact real. They consider it a major failure of the film that viewers are confused by this point.

Click to expand...

Twisted Metal said:

I've never heard anyone say that in the midst of the arguments on imdb forums. It's an ok theory, but I never suspected that the landlady knew that he was a murderer.

Another thing.

Spoiler

The end rampage did not happen. Right? It was just too farfetched. Blowing up cop cars with single pistol bullets, and just shooting everyone in site. The "Feed me a stray cat" displayed on the ATM was also in his head, so why couldn't the murders be? Also, if he was REALLY storing bodies in Paul's apartment, wouldn't the so called detective have discovered them, considering Paul was the center of a disappearance investigation? I'm sure the detective would be visiting Paul's place frequently. But I think the detective was in his head too. Why do we never see him at the end?

Someone on imdb also mentioned the pills he took. He tended to take them before the so called "murders" and his murders were always related to something he has seen on TV. I say they were hallucinogenic. As I remember he was watching some horror movie with a chainsaw. Then he was watching a 3-some porn, both of which he reenacted later in the movie. There's probably more that I'm missing, but you get the point.

So yeah, I'm pretty strong on the murders did not happen theory.

However, one of the more intelligent posts at imdb (I know, it rarely happens) suggest that the viewer was meant to be confused at the end, and that this debate was meant to happen. You see, we are left with the same confusion that Patrick Bateman was at the end, and we don't know what to think. For all intents and purposes, we become Patrick Bateman.

Click to expand...