I finished the book, the book is far more graphic and is far more violent, everything does happens, yes Patrick loses his mind but regains it at the end when you realize the lawyer covered up for him. It's that simple.
Explain how a man can blow up 2 cop car with a hand gun? Explain how a man can kill a lady with a chainsaw like that and run around naked covered in blood while doing it? Explain how its NYC and nobody's ever around? Wait I know... the entire film expect the last 20 minutes was a fantasy!
Mistaken identity is a recuring theme. It shows how bland and stale the scene is on Wall Street, where no one is an individual and everyone is interchangable.
That's exactly right. The book harps over and over (it's kind of repetitive, but that in itself is a kind of statement) that nobody actually knows anyone. Bateman can't recognize half the people he has worked with for years, and nobody can recognize him, either, because human beings are not important. Everything is image, personalities is superficial, not just his but everyone in his high society circle. And yet, he can recognize and speak in detail and at length on absolutely any kind of fashion, pop music, or nouveau cuisine as if it's his passion.
@@ShimmySnail Which makes you wonder - IF Patrick really did kill Paul Allen (a definite maybe), then WHO did the lawyer have dinner with in London, twice? And who did his "friends" have drinks with the night Paul Allen disappeared?
@@MrJeffcoley1 He's a lawyer, he lied to Patrick once he knew the truth. He made him believe it was all in his head so he wouldn't confess to anyone else.
The biggest clue about the self absorption and focus on material wealth is when he's putting the body in the trunk of a cab and the only thing the people who recognized him can think is "where did you get that bag?"
Well, without being too familiar with the book, I adore which direction this movie took but I've seen the interview with Mary Harron before and way back it already was flabbergasting to me how she could deny such an obviously ambivalent ending. Makes me wonder; did she understand her own work? Apparently, the production has been quirky or at least very difficult, so maybe the whole flick was just a lucky accident.
Maybe it's because I read the book first, but I didn't see the ending as obviously ambivalent, I took it all as straightforward. I saw the film in the theater and I don't remember any of this talk about it being some imagined plot at that time, this discussion seemed to come well after the film's release. The book has some of Bateman's messed up backstory, it gives you at least some insight as to how he got to be the murderer you see in the film, so he didn't just lose his mind & become delusional as an adult. I think it may have been because they had to cut a lot out of the book to make the film watchable so the confusion arises from adaptation.
the director says why the blood trail disappears in he next shot was just bad continuity be he did kill paul allen all the victims he mentions on the phone at the end are reference to victims in the book even though none of these victims wer shown in the film makes me want to read the book again but I do remmber that the first 100.00 pages hes just describing all of his expensive crap in his apt and the music he likes but so much nasty stuff in the book could never be filmed thank goodness decrapio bowed out from the filmn that little chubby weasel titanic mo fo
Simplified: The bodies are not in the apartment because the apartment complex is so obsessed with money that all they care about is getting the room cleaned so they can rent it to someone else. The lawyer doesn't know the names of anyone because the joke is everyone back then had the same standards of class and the author was exaggerating it to the point where nobody can put a name to a face because everyone is so similar. The movie is a satire.
It's far more disturbing to realize he DID kill most of those people. The bodies in his home? His rich dad covered it up. The lawyer saying he saw his victim abroad? Just a cover that is backed by the voice-mail. Everyone is covering for him. Which means his mental condition and confession will never lead to anything.
I see, so the point is that he’s part of a privileged class, basically. His deeds will never be exposed because he’s protected by powerful people, and the people around him are too self-absorbed to even notice him dragging out a corpse into the street. He will keep killing and nobody will notice because nobody cares, and that’s the true problem.
The author has stated that never meant there to be an answer as to whether or not the killings were real. He intentionally provided evidence that prove both theories, but since both theories can't exist simultaneously, it impossible for both to be right. The uncertainty is intentionally left so that the reader can draw their own conclusions. There is no right answer.
Apparently, Christian Bale based his character on Tom Cruise. He tried to make Bateman look the same as Cruise - creepily overenthusiastic, but when you look him in the eye, there's nothing there.
@@jackevans1092 My bad then untag me so I can cover up my tracks. Just kidding, but I know his beliefs to some extent, and he seems way less crazy than Tom Cruise.
just re-watched this banger of a movie and noticed this scene. changed my entire perspective haha but literally I couldn't find anyone talking about this in the comments..
I have read the book as well and for me going by the book he actually did kill those people . As stated in the video . The problem is everyone is so self centred that they don't even know each others names for the most part . He is delusional but I do think he killed them . Problem is no one in his circle cares . His girlfriend doesn't even recognise him at a party when he is there the whole time .
Greatest actor of his generation. So underrated. His can play so many type of characters, literally transforming himself if needed. I never get tired of seeing him.
another thing that was interesting to me was how I truly believe Patricks apartment was way nicer than Allens yet himself along with everyone else who's seen the apartment believes everything to be the other way around.
A psychopath is trapped in their own head. Anytime he accuses someone of something it’s a confession. What he hears isn’t reality it’s his version of reality and he’s so insecure he really believes people are saying that.
A very important aspect no one is noticing is his medication. There are a few frames showing some medication (likely for his condition) and he takes a whole bunch of pills at the phone booth towards the end of movie. This makes me lean towards he made everything up in his mind since the medication made him see reality clearly
I kinda just figured his dad knows about his ailments and kept it under raps, he probably got him diagnosed when he was younger and that is probably why Patrick has medication. Since his father is the ceo of the company he has a lot of power and when Patrick explained his situation to the lawyer, the lawyer reported it to the father and he cleaned up the mess that was made. At least that's what I thought happened.
@@ananyvats5343because he is his dad he’s not who he believes he is he’s someone else entirely.. maybe just throwing idea out the film is confusing af 😂
If you read the book then you'd know the author said he never meant there to be an answer as to whether or not the killings were real. He intentionally provided evidence of both theories, making it impossible for only one to be right
Blaze The Singer a classic??? I dunno about that.....i hate to be that guy, but I'm going to be that guy.... read the book... It's more comically entertaining than disturbing.
Ezequias Lopes that is one part that keeps getting to me, the rest fits perfectly with either imagination, or the idea that everyone is so self absorbed that they just are not focused on each other's identities and whereabouts etc. But that damn explosion 😂
I think some parts are real, like Paul Allen dying and the apartment full of dead hookers. The chainsaw scene i'm on the fence about, I would think people would come outside and see what was going on during all of that, but then again its entirely possible due to bystander syndrome for people to ignore that esp at like 2 am. The rampage is likely completely hallucination, we know it begins with the hallucination of feeding the cat to the ATM, so its entirely reasonable to assume that whole night leading up to the phone call to his lawyer is a hallucination. But I am in the camp of some murders really happened, the fanciful ones didn't. Him killing the homeless guy seems entirely real, that shit happens IRL too, there are entire youtube videos made of teenagers "bum bashing". Either way, thematically the whole point of this work is to illustrate these characters fucked up world where what's "inside doesn't matter" and only money and status do, which can enable someone like a serial killer to be extremely successful. This is highlighted by the property owners for that apartment being so involved with their image and prestige that they'd conceal mass murders in order to maintain the outside image that this is a nice, pretty, wealthy high end neighborhood full of nice, pretty, and wealthy neighbors.
@@serpentsepia6638 What she means is that his psychosis began to exacerbate at that moment. You knew something was wrong when there was a closeup at him taking his medication. He DID kill people but everyone was so self-absorbed that they didn't even know who was actually who, giving Bateman the alibi, the lawyer stating that he had lunch with Paul Allen. The relator wanted him to leave, knowing he was the one responsible for what she found. She needed to sell the place. NY in the 80's was like that. Theaters were showing DeepThroat for God sakes. It wasn't what the city is today. There were bits and pieces of psychosis popping up throughout the movie but then his psychosis began to manifest, ie the chainsaw and shootout.
If I may pop in to explain (since so many seem to be confused still, to help); it starts out as real, but then becomes in his head only (fictional) - according to the authors/directors themselves - but it is not all fictional. What this means is, that the early violence is true and real (“he is a psycho”) and he has done some things, but there is a point where it becomes only in his head (“he is a psycho”), which is shown by the drawings (for one representation). If you watch the movie, the end killings (esp. the chainsaw one) has clues, such as no indicators on the doors, and the very, very improbable ‘chainsaw landing perfectly vertical on a moving target’. These types of clues are to point you towards these moments being entirely in his head (“psycho”, these things are not normal to think about). He drew them, they did not happen. There is violence and bad things that happened though, which is part of the landlord’s response to his questioning. As stated in this video, it all starts to become in his head around the time he enters his psychosis within himself, in the mirror (tip: mirrors are often used as points and counterpoints in this manner, in movies and books). I hope that helps those who are left confused by this video. I may not be correct, either, if that helps at all.
I started to think 🤔 that at the end that all the rich people were in the Illuminati cult. And they cover up for each other much like Free Mason's do. I could be wrong though.
Bateman really is killing everyone but the people around him are cleaning up his messes. Bateman seems to want to stop and maybe even get help but they refuse to acknowledge his crimes because they want his wealth.
I hope this helps.The film may have taken a different direction but the book was made to represent how all Wall Street yuppies where cookie cutters of each other and lived in excess. In the book he did murder people but because they all look like one another (which is why he gets called by different names and the business card look the same to us but they notice the suttle differences) he was able to get away with the murders, because they all look alike other people thought they saw Jared Leto''s character and because they all looked alike Patrick had aliabies for the other murders even though he was not there ( people mistakenly took some Wall Street guy as being Patrick). American Psycho is a tale of Greed, Excess, and what it was like to have the trivial life of being a Wall Street Yuppie in the 80's. I recommend watching the bonus features detailing the lives of yuppies in the 80's and the level of Excess they lived sometimes beyond there own means.
agreed they are the same thats why they keep confusing everybody they all look and act the same if it was in his head then why would a detective be after him for the disappearance of letos character
Also, to further the notion that everybody confused everyone around them, even on that shooting rampage with the police, when bateman entered, the guy at the front desk referred to him as Mr. Smith
One thing I find interesting is that during the Huey Lewis scene, he claims that they are more cynical than Elvis Costello. I have to point out that nobody familiar with those artists would ever consider Elvis Costello LESS cynical than HL and the News. That line isn’t there to demonstrate that Bateman is a man who knows what he’s talking about. It’s a subtle nod that he has no personality other than what he absorbs, and is parroting reviews as personal opinion whilst misremembering the details- probably because he has never had a personal connection with anyone, even through music.
I love that the director accidentally created the question that has kept this movie talked about for twenty years, and yet she admits that this was a failure in her storytelling. Good for her for integrity, I suppose. But it seems to me that she is flat-out saying that her greatest success with this movie was the opposite that she intended. The ambiguity of it is what has kept it relevant, yet she admits that's never what she intended.
Well some of it was definitely in his head but yes I def agree she gave people an impression she didn't intend lol I thought it was all in his head personally haha just now realized he really killed people
All of his "murders" are just him fantasizing while he draws murders. He kills the hooker with the chainsaw and then the very next scene is him drawing that very murder
I really enjoyed reading the book after watching the movie, because then I had an exact idea of Patrick Bateman. I always had Bales face in mind when I read it, which matched perfectly.
I always thought they cover up the things around him. Maybe his lawyer took care somehow on the mess. The woman in the appartment acted strange. It makes him of course more crazy, without knowing about any of these things.
Sue O'Brien He really did kill people, but the society of rich businessmen around him were just too self centered to notice. He got away with it because no one around him really paid attention to anything except themselves.
Everyone in high society was so self centered they couldn't even remember other people's names. The lawyer who said he had dinner with Paul Allen in London was misremembering Paul Allen's name and mistaking him for someone else. Therefore, Bateman really killed Paul Allen.
Patrick batemans coworker Marcus hagelstrom tells the detective that Patrick was at dinner with him the night of Paul’s murder, in the final scene hagelstrom correctly calls Patrick ‘Bateman’ when asking for his view on the TV. This shows that hagelstrom knows who Patrick is and does not mistaken his identity and so proves that he was at dinner and must have been fantasising about killing Paul instead of actually doing it
I actually like the ambiguity of if he did or didn't kill them. I'm in the camp that he didn't kill them, considering that the murder get more and more outlandish and the cover-ups for them would just get harder to the point of being impossible even for the time period.
really didn't think this film would be this bad(twisted), I wanted to see his acting, that's all. But This movies is & was so confusing, as for the plot, I couldn't conclude what actually happened.
my take has always been this, yes he did kill all those people. The ending acts shows him spiral out of control and out of grasp with reality... so some of the ending scenes are hallucinations. Everyone over thinks this and it's actually just a really simplistic way to end it all. The sanity he kept hidden for so long finally escaped and he couldn't tell reality from fiction anymore.
this is seriously one of my top 3 favorite films. i quote it all the time, i reference it all the time. truly an iconic film. also the hip to be square dance... yesss
While Chris Bale gave face to Pat Bateman, I seriously implore you to read the novel. It's one of the best written pieces ever, and gives understanding about the characters'' psyche.
Bateman, is Batman's alter-alter ego ...it's how he lets off steam. Being THREE different personalities is enough to drive ANYONE insane. Also, he's forgotten that he SUPED-UP his Glock to be able to fire Exploding Rounds (hence the police car blowing up), and that Alfred clears up after him, playing off the Real Estate lady. Moreover, his uncanny ability to hit his targets from many floors up ...be it a staircase (Chainsaw - American Psycho), or car park spiral ramp (Himself landing on a car - The Dark Knight). As for the ATM and the Cat ...this was the Joker having fun.
defoe has that amazing long face he should have been in batman 1989 as the joker you wouldnt have to do the rubber make up for the cheeks just paint him white and the red lipstick that big freakin grin but they went with a big star nicholson dont get me wrong he was great but even at that time too old and fat but so much freaking energy jackkearned that 5 million plus point and everything with his face on it but defoe would have been physically the joker
Paul Allen's family may have cleaned up the flat and covered up the crimes. It is already mentioned how rich his family were and how they wanted to keep his disappearance out of the papers. Maybe the family assumed, when the bodies were found in his flat, that he hadn't simply gone missing and had instead killed all of those people and was laying low?
When PB first walks into work,after his workout scene, one of his co workers called him by a different name. It sounded similar to McClure. That,to me anyway,was a clue that something was up. IMO
I definitely believe in the coverup theory. It’s supposed to demonstrate how morally bankrupt everyone is that they care more about maintaining the image of propriety than holding Bateman accountable. Also, the culture of hedonism, greed, and conformity is like a prison from which Bateman tries to escape through acts of violence. But he is denied catharsis because of the powerful people who protect him from any consequences. So he remains locked into the status quo and remains unable to express himself (homicide is a really bad means of self-expression, btw...).
I haven't seen the whole film. But this video summarizes it brilliantly. Studying pre-medicine, sometimes you find pre-docs who are essentially sociopaths more concerned about building their image, wealth, and status more than assisting the sick and frail. Much like these fools. I've even seen a doctor post his sexual escapades with another single female doctor, photographing themselves in the act while still wearing scrubs. Absolutely disgustingly pitiful. I am so glad judgement exists and Hell. Some people are practically begging for it.
It’s about the rich and how they will cover things up. His father owns a lot of the company, the things his son does are covered up by those rich above. His son is just doing alot which is why the lawyer caught an attitude and the lady told him “don’t cause any trouble”. Like a bad child.
Its also funny how the have all the same position. they are all vidce presidents of P&P. Makes me think they are actually all the same person and Bateman is shizoprenic.
1000 Subscribers Without Videos He kills her. Earlier in the movie he checks his shoes for blood after killing a guy, and he does the same after exiting her house.
Thanks. I kinda was really confused on this one, because I tried to believe that he isn't dreaming, but then that hallucination seen... :D first time (by explaining movie ending) Looper truly helps me.
An important aspect to me, in terms of did he actually kill anyone, is the unrealistic fantasy aspect of the weapons he uses. The chrome plated axe - this implies that he bought an axe then paid a shop to have it chrome plated... or how else to you end up with a polished shiny axe? The nail gun he holds to the girls head is pneumatic, it would require an air hose hooked up to a compressor to be able to fire, it is incapable of firing in that scene. The chainsaw would not continue running after he lets go of it due to multiple safety features.
I don't think it matters whether he did kill those people or not. I think this film is a pure representation of Jean's Baudrillard's ideas of postmodern society, the simulacra and simulation, just brought to the extremums. In a nutshell - Patrick, just like the viewers of the film, can no longer distinguish reality from the fake reality, aka - simulation. The many brands shown in the film, the lifestyle, people with identities so similar, that they even get confused who is who (and that happens to be "copies of the copies" how Baudrillard would probably say) - all of that is what creates the simulation, everything mentioned is a simulacra. There were attempts to show Baudrillard's ideas even before, in "The Matrix", for example (actually, the whole idea of this film is based on Baudrillard's philosophy). But the difference is that in "The Matrix" there's a very clear line between the simulation and the real world, the distinction is very much visible, that's why the film failed in representing Baudrillard's ideas (even though film very much respects philosophy and even shows Neo holding the book "Simulacra and Simulation"). Baudrillard himself has seen it and didn't like "The Matrix" (not sure whether he saw American Psycho, though). So yeah, also, notice how there's no particle "the" in the name of the film "American Psycho", so it could be implied, that the idea is not about a particular person, but the whole society.
I've only seen the movie all the way through once but I never thought that "it was all a dream." To me, it was clear that he was going more and more crazy throughout the movie but the reason he got away with it all had to do with the people around him and his own privilege along with theirs. The filmmakers clearly gave the impression from the very beginning that NONE of these people live in the "real world" like normal people and thus go about their own vices with those around them only feeding into them going further with it all.
In the novel, there is a line from Bateman, where he says something about doing something, and then says “even though none of this is really happening anyway”. When I read the book, a few years before the film, I too got the slight impression that it was a fantasy, an extreme jab at the shallow, materialistic, 1980’s world of the yuppie.
Ithink what happened with the police and the ATM was in his head, even the Paul Allen part. Yes, the characters often mistake people for someone else, but his lawyer says he was in London, and there aren't a lot of people from their social circle in London
I think the movie starts off as portraying Patrick as a distinct psycho but slowly pushes towards the idea that patrick wasn't as different as everyone else in the show which confuses him.
Holly Haley I read that aswell but I think she came out against the book after its release in the 80s and the film was much later ,it's unknown if he took the role to piss her off.
My girlfriend wanted to go to dinner, but I told her Id be busy returning some videotapes. She wasnt happy with that answer so I dropped a chainsaw on her from 10 floors above. Gotta go, reservations at Dorsia at 9pm.
For me he didn't kill anyone and made everything up in his mind, but he was capable of killing all those people that i will give it to him. But regardless of the fact that he did or didn't kill those ppl, Patrick Bateman is one of the finest sigma males in the Sigmaverse 😂
Patrick Bateman is the older brother to James Van Der Beek's character Sean Bateman in the movie Rules of Attraction. American Psycho and Rules of Attraction were both written by the same author. It makes even more sense now of why James Van Der Beek's character was so messed up too.
The author cleared this up years ago. When he wrote it he considered all the murders to have been part of his delusion. The entire movie is essentially from the viewpoint of someone who has already lost their mind, but none of it actually happens. Even his identity is confusing because the main character himself has lost his own identity amid his delusions. But it's widely acknowledged that regardless of the author's explanation it's still ambiguous since people will always come to their own conclusions regardless.
Sounds like the filmmakers are deliberately entertaining theories about him being a real killer so people will keep talking about the film. But watching the film, it seemed I never considered for a second it wasn't all delusion. It seemed pretty obviously that he was suppose to be a guy that snapped because he was failing to make an impact - no-one remembered his name, and his office was a sad little office. He spent all day sketching murders in his book which was revealed at the end as final proof it was all delusion.
Well, the novel was straightforward, and also gave some hints about Bateman's childhood, that he was seemingly born to become psychotic like some serial killers seem to be such as Gacy or Bundy, so he wasn't just a guy who lost his mind as an adult. The sketchbook was also in the novel.
it's all in his head. in the beginning of the movie you'll see Patrick point to Paul Allen on the other side of the restaurant. it's some random actor/extra, not Jared Leto.
I love how the opening monologue is just completely ignored by you guys as an explanation for the events of the movie. He is simply not there. All he is his routine and his facade. That should be your frame of mind for watching his actions.
What other thrillers do you want us to explore?
Looper the silence of the Lambs
Looper shutter island!
Looper Voices
Looper Split!!!
Shrek 2
I need to return some video tapes...
Sure you do.
I still use that as an excuse to exit situations I don't want to be in.
🤣🤣🤣🤣
😂😂😂
😂😂😂
SABRINA, DON'T JUST STARE AT IT, EAT IT!!
Oh the tasteful thickness of it.
Ass
Do you like Huey Lewis and the news?
I understand this reference
Sorbet?
I finished the book, the book is far more graphic and is far more violent, everything does happens, yes Patrick loses his mind but regains it at the end when you realize the lawyer covered up for him. It's that simple.
Explain how a man can blow up 2 cop car with a hand gun? Explain how a man can kill a lady with a chainsaw like that and run around naked covered in blood while doing it? Explain how its NYC and nobody's ever around? Wait I know... the entire film expect the last 20 minutes was a fantasy!
@Luke Bailey then tell us who did cover it up
@Luke Bailey Yeah it's his fiancée
@Luke Bailey then who omg
No. Everything happens in his mind.
Mistaken identity is a recuring theme. It shows how bland and stale the scene is on Wall Street, where no one is an individual and everyone is interchangable.
That's how I always took it. Glad to know that I got it right.
That's exactly right. The book harps over and over (it's kind of repetitive, but that in itself is a kind of statement) that nobody actually knows anyone. Bateman can't recognize half the people he has worked with for years, and nobody can recognize him, either, because human beings are not important. Everything is image, personalities is superficial, not just his but everyone in his high society circle. And yet, he can recognize and speak in detail and at length on absolutely any kind of fashion, pop music, or nouveau cuisine as if it's his passion.
@@ShimmySnail Which makes you wonder - IF Patrick really did kill Paul Allen (a definite maybe), then WHO did the lawyer have dinner with in London, twice? And who did his "friends" have drinks with the night Paul Allen disappeared?
@@MrJeffcoley1 He's a lawyer, he lied to Patrick once he knew the truth. He made him believe it was all in his head so he wouldn't confess to anyone else.
The biggest clue about the self absorption and focus on material wealth is when he's putting the body in the trunk of a cab and the only thing the people who recognized him can think is "where did you get that bag?"
JEAN PAUL GAULTIER
I know and the blood streak from him dragging the body through the lobby.
jean paul gaultier
Oversized bag*
@@ThePankkaj I think he said “overnight” bag
Thank you for confusing me even more
I second that!
At the end of the video the people who made the film explain it for you. What's not to get?
BigBadJerry Rogers but I suppose video is abt the movie rather than the book
Well, without being too familiar with the book, I adore which direction this movie took but I've seen the interview with Mary Harron before and way back it already was flabbergasting to me how she could deny such an obviously ambivalent ending. Makes me wonder; did she understand her own work? Apparently, the production has been quirky or at least very difficult, so maybe the whole flick was just a lucky accident.
Maybe it's because I read the book first, but I didn't see the ending as obviously ambivalent, I took it all as straightforward. I saw the film in the theater and I don't remember any of this talk about it being some imagined plot at that time, this discussion seemed to come well after the film's release. The book has some of Bateman's messed up backstory, it gives you at least some insight as to how he got to be the murderer you see in the film, so he didn't just lose his mind & become delusional as an adult. I think it may have been because they had to cut a lot out of the book to make the film watchable so the confusion arises from adaptation.
Let's not forget he drops a chainsaw down a few floors onto a running target
yeah even dude perfect cant pull that of without retakes
the director says why the blood trail disappears in he next shot was just bad continuity be he did kill paul allen all the victims he mentions on the phone at the end are reference to victims in the book even though none of these victims wer shown in the film makes me want to read the book again but I do remmber that the first 100.00 pages hes just describing all of his expensive crap in his apt and the music he likes but so much nasty stuff in the book could never be filmed thank goodness decrapio bowed out from the filmn that little chubby weasel titanic mo fo
@@gkroll8467 holy shit dude learn some punctuation
max wood best trick shot ever
@bean machine Holy shit! Dude, learn some punctuation.
Simplified: The bodies are not in the apartment because the apartment complex is so obsessed with money that all they care about is getting the room cleaned so they can rent it to someone else. The lawyer doesn't know the names of anyone because the joke is everyone back then had the same standards of class and the author was exaggerating it to the point where nobody can put a name to a face because everyone is so similar. The movie is a satire.
I read the book and I'd say that is one of the main feelings you get from the characters.
just about anyone can be patrick bateman no one can separate who is who because all of them are the same
your comment was way better in explaining the ending and took seconds to read instead of wasting minutes with the video. thank you
So the detective looked the other way too? That's strange
Nope
It's far more disturbing to realize he DID kill most of those people. The bodies in his home? His rich dad covered it up. The lawyer saying he saw his victim abroad? Just a cover that is backed by the voice-mail. Everyone is covering for him. Which means his mental condition and confession will never lead to anything.
I see, so the point is that he’s part of a privileged class, basically. His deeds will never be exposed because he’s protected by powerful people, and the people around him are too self-absorbed to even notice him dragging out a corpse into the street. He will keep killing and nobody will notice because nobody cares, and that’s the true problem.
Actually the lawyer thinks he had dinner with paul allen cuz everyone looks the same that everyone cant recognize a single person
@@gamerlol446 nah I don’t think so, why would any of them be in London. It was a subtle way for the lawyer to tell Patrick that the alibi was cemented
@@henrikaugustsson4041 except even the privileged can no longer get away with murder.
So he really killed those people and its not hallucination? So what about the cops the car that blew up
More important Batman killed the Joker
Omg. You sir, get my like.
Lewis Freeman beat me to it
Batman 4 the Win!
Ujjwal Uniyal no it's Agent Smecker!
lmao
Christian bale could be a great joker
Yes!
Cool name the witch was another great film. You got good taste my dude.
+Phillip Painter my real name is Phillip also lol
Heath Ledger wasn't good in any other movies. I can't imagine him being Batman.
DRS HE WASN'T GOOD IN ANY MOVIE. DARK KNIGHT RING A FREAKING BELL.
The author has stated that never meant there to be an answer as to whether or not the killings were real. He intentionally provided evidence that prove both theories, but since both theories can't exist simultaneously, it impossible for both to be right. The uncertainty is intentionally left so that the reader can draw their own conclusions. There is no right answer.
That just kinda dumb, you kinda just contradict yourself
Wow that’s brilliant
@@mysticsaru8577 and that's why it's so different, wow this is truly a masterpiece
Thank you! Now my mind is at ease.. I was so confused after watching it again today.
I'm gonna go with the whole thing just being Schrödinger's cat.
This movie is truly a masterpiece
agreed. and also unappreciated. caught the vibe of 80's perfectly.
the fact that its still so discussed is a testament of it. In 50 years it will still be talked about I think
Chelsea Colson If the earth survives 50 years
Mega MovieZ the earth will be just fine, trust me
true asf
Apparently, Christian Bale based his character on Tom Cruise. He tried to make Bateman look the same as Cruise - creepily overenthusiastic, but when you look him in the eye, there's nothing there.
Chris Moeller
Thats interesting. Do you have a link id like to read more.
Funny you mentioned that. In the Novel, Bateman actually meets Tom Cruise in an elevator inside his appartment building. No joke
@@jackevans1092 Tom Cruise is a raving lunatic who "isn't there". Jim is no where near as crazy.
@@jackevans1092 If you're actually serious then you should know the OP is making a joke about Tom Cruise not a factual statement.
@@jackevans1092 My bad then untag me so I can cover up my tracks. Just kidding, but I know his beliefs to some extent, and he seems way less crazy than Tom Cruise.
Let's not forget the blood trail he left after killing Paul Allen. It's definitely all in his head the security worker would have noticed it
It also disappears when the camera changes angles
Finally, someone talking about it
just re-watched this banger of a movie and noticed this scene. changed my entire perspective haha but literally I couldn't find anyone talking about this in the comments..
It's not all in his head
STILL WAITING FOR THE OPENING AT DORSIA
I have read the book as well and for me going by the book he actually did kill those people . As stated in the video . The problem is everyone is so self centred that they don't even know each others names for the most part .
He is delusional but I do think he killed them . Problem is no one in his circle cares . His girlfriend doesn't even recognise him at a party when he is there the whole time .
Dang that's crazy
they all covered for him while gaslighting him into believing he didn't kill anybody, hilariously satirical
Greatest actor of his generation. So underrated. His can play so many type of characters, literally transforming himself if needed. I never get tired of seeing him.
i mean he's not underrated but ...
i like how he turns into jim carrey before he “kills” alan 😂
😂
another thing that was interesting to me was how I truly believe Patricks apartment was way nicer than Allens yet himself along with everyone else who's seen the apartment believes everything to be the other way around.
Ikr
A psychopath is trapped in their own head. Anytime he accuses someone of something it’s a confession. What he hears isn’t reality it’s his version of reality and he’s so insecure he really believes people are saying that.
A very important aspect no one is noticing is his medication. There are a few frames showing some medication (likely for his condition) and he takes a whole bunch of pills at the phone booth towards the end of movie. This makes me lean towards he made everything up in his mind since the medication made him see reality clearly
Same boat bro
This
Video
Didn’t
Explain
Anything
I'm not sure if you planned for "Anything" to remain hidden until "show more" is clicked. If so, nice touch!
I kinda just figured his dad knows about his ailments and kept it under raps, he probably got him diagnosed when he was younger and that is probably why Patrick has medication. Since his father is the ceo of the company he has a lot of power and when Patrick explained his situation to the lawyer, the lawyer reported it to the father and he cleaned up the mess that was made. At least that's what I thought happened.
Why does the lawyer calls him davis nd his friends call him bateman at the end ?
@@ananyvats5343because he is his dad he’s not who he believes he is he’s someone else entirely.. maybe just throwing idea out the film is confusing af 😂
He committed all those murders. The point is that there are no consequences for him. The book and movie is a commentary on yuppie culture in the 80's.
If you read the book then you'd know the author said he never meant there to be an answer as to whether or not the killings were real. He intentionally provided evidence of both theories, making it impossible for only one to be right
@@altruisticPing she*
@@sarak2336 Author of book is a male. Director of movie is female. They clearly are referring to the book. Nice try
@@Payfieman a man typed all those words
@@sarak2336He*
Cheers Looper for explaining nothing, I had to go into the comments section to find my answers.
Funny, I understood perfectly.
haha hard bro I cpmpletely agree they explained nothing
Patrick Batman
This movie is more than a timeless classic, it's definitely a masterpiece!
Blaze The Singer a classic??? I dunno about that.....i hate to be that guy, but I'm going to be that guy.... read the book... It's more comically entertaining than disturbing.
books are lame
That it is ..
Yeah it definitely aged well 20 years later
I always thought that Patrick did kill all these man. But I'm not sure about the police part. That shit was crazy as fuck.
Ezequias Lopes that is one part that keeps getting to me, the rest fits perfectly with either imagination, or the idea that everyone is so self absorbed that they just are not focused on each other's identities and whereabouts etc. But that damn explosion 😂
Liberty-Lea Love, yes, but this is why I love this movie, everyone has a different experience with it.
It may be a parody of all the ridiculous action movie sequences where a guy shoots a car with a gun and it explodes randomly lol
I think some parts are real, like Paul Allen dying and the apartment full of dead hookers. The chainsaw scene i'm on the fence about, I would think people would come outside and see what was going on during all of that, but then again its entirely possible due to bystander syndrome for people to ignore that esp at like 2 am.
The rampage is likely completely hallucination, we know it begins with the hallucination of feeding the cat to the ATM, so its entirely reasonable to assume that whole night leading up to the phone call to his lawyer is a hallucination. But I am in the camp of some murders really happened, the fanciful ones didn't. Him killing the homeless guy seems entirely real, that shit happens IRL too, there are entire youtube videos made of teenagers "bum bashing".
Either way, thematically the whole point of this work is to illustrate these characters fucked up world where what's "inside doesn't matter" and only money and status do, which can enable someone like a serial killer to be extremely successful. This is highlighted by the property owners for that apartment being so involved with their image and prestige that they'd conceal mass murders in order to maintain the outside image that this is a nice, pretty, wealthy high end neighborhood full of nice, pretty, and wealthy neighbors.
"I never intended it to seem like it's all in his head"
- "feed me a stray cat". 😐
🐱
Agreed. Blows up a cop car with a handgun and hit a lady with a chainsaw a half dozen or so floors down. How can it not be in his head?
@@serpentsepia6638 What she means is that his psychosis began to exacerbate at that moment. You knew something was wrong when there was a closeup at him taking his medication. He DID kill people but everyone was so self-absorbed that they didn't even know who was actually who, giving Bateman the alibi, the lawyer stating that he had lunch with Paul Allen. The relator wanted him to leave, knowing he was the one responsible for what she found. She needed to sell the place. NY in the 80's was like that. Theaters were showing DeepThroat for God sakes. It wasn't what the city is today. There were bits and pieces of psychosis popping up throughout the movie but then his psychosis began to manifest, ie the chainsaw and shootout.
I showed this scene to my cat...it proceeded to decapitate me with a chainsaw...
@@serpentsepia6638 I can assure you it wasn't in my head. I did it. For real.
Exactly.
I have to go now , I have to return some video tapes !!
HEY PAUL
If I may pop in to explain (since so many seem to be confused still, to help); it starts out as real, but then becomes in his head only (fictional) - according to the authors/directors themselves - but it is not all fictional.
What this means is, that the early violence is true and real (“he is a psycho”) and he has done some things, but there is a point where it becomes only in his head (“he is a psycho”), which is shown by the drawings (for one representation).
If you watch the movie, the end killings (esp. the chainsaw one) has clues, such as no indicators on the doors, and the very, very improbable ‘chainsaw landing perfectly vertical on a moving target’. These types of clues are to point you towards these moments being entirely in his head (“psycho”, these things are not normal to think about). He drew them, they did not happen.
There is violence and bad things that happened though, which is part of the landlord’s response to his questioning. As stated in this video, it all starts to become in his head around the time he enters his psychosis within himself, in the mirror (tip: mirrors are often used as points and counterpoints in this manner, in movies and books).
I hope that helps those who are left confused by this video.
I may not be correct, either, if that helps at all.
You can't answer a question that has no definitive answer. It's called ambiguity
I finally get it!
Batman killed Joker.
the worst joker
penguin was behind the whole thing in my opinion. penguin orchestrated it all from the shadows.
Who are you?
I'm Bateman.
The point was his lawyer cleaned up the mess, he is an influential yuppie, his dad was a bigshot too. That was the point, no consequences.
Until he dies and goes to Hell lol.
Still left me confused about the ending...
that is the different between western and estern asian
I started to think 🤔 that at the end that all the rich people were in the Illuminati cult. And they cover up for each other much like Free Mason's do. I could be wrong though.
Mark Johnson Freeman's, Illuminati the natural progression of the private school network.
Mark Johnson youre wrong
Bateman really is killing everyone but the people around him are cleaning up his messes. Bateman seems to want to stop and maybe even get help but they refuse to acknowledge his crimes because they want his wealth.
This video was completely unhelpful at deciphering new details from this film, thanks!
I hope this helps.The film may have taken a different direction but the book was made to represent how all Wall Street yuppies where cookie cutters of each other and lived in excess. In the book he did murder people but because they all look like one another (which is why he gets called by different names and the business card look the same to us but they notice the suttle differences) he was able to get away with the murders, because they all look alike other people thought they saw Jared Leto''s character and because they all looked alike Patrick had aliabies for the other murders even though he was not there ( people mistakenly took some Wall Street guy as being Patrick). American Psycho is a tale of Greed, Excess, and what it was like to have the trivial life of being a Wall Street Yuppie in the 80's. I recommend watching the bonus features detailing the lives of yuppies in the 80's and the level of Excess they lived sometimes beyond there own means.
Amen brother. Movie does the book no justice.
agreed they are the same thats why they keep confusing everybody they all look and act the same if it was in his head then why would a detective be after him for the disappearance of letos character
Also, to further the notion that everybody confused everyone around them, even on that shooting rampage with the police, when bateman entered, the guy at the front desk referred to him as Mr. Smith
Way better explanation than the own video thanks!
It's clear that Mary Harron directed a masterpiece, but now I'm just confused as to whether she intended to...
One thing I find interesting is that during the Huey Lewis scene, he claims that they are more cynical than Elvis Costello. I have to point out that nobody familiar with those artists would ever consider Elvis Costello LESS cynical than HL and the News.
That line isn’t there to demonstrate that Bateman is a man who knows what he’s talking about. It’s a subtle nod that he has no personality other than what he absorbs, and is parroting reviews as personal opinion whilst misremembering the details- probably because he has never had a personal connection with anyone, even through music.
Oliver Cuenca most intelligent thing said here
Yep bingo it’s the same thing when he’s at dinner in the beginning and is asked about his political opinions
Wait a minute.. he goes from BATEMAN to BATMAN
I love that the director accidentally created the question that has kept this movie talked about for twenty years, and yet she admits that this was a failure in her storytelling. Good for her for integrity, I suppose. But it seems to me that she is flat-out saying that her greatest success with this movie was the opposite that she intended. The ambiguity of it is what has kept it relevant, yet she admits that's never what she intended.
Well some of it was definitely in his head but yes I def agree she gave people an impression she didn't intend lol I thought it was all in his head personally haha just now realized he really killed people
No?? Afaik she said the ambiguity was intended, and what she regretted was making it not more ambiguous.
Task failed succesfully
The ambiguity was intentional by the author of the book.
All of his "murders" are just him fantasizing while he draws murders. He kills the hooker with the chainsaw and then the very next scene is him drawing that very murder
That’s what I thought also because why other would they even show the sketches there was no reason for her to even look in his desk in the first place
Objective: not achieved
I really enjoyed reading the book after watching the movie, because then I had an exact idea of Patrick Bateman. I always had Bales face in mind when I read it, which matched perfectly.
I always thought they cover up the things around him. Maybe his lawyer took care somehow on the mess. The woman in the appartment acted strange. It makes him of course more crazy, without knowing about any of these things.
Just watched this movie. Still confused by the ending even after watching this analysis.
Same
this explains nothing
Sue O'Brien He really did kill people, but the society of rich businessmen around him were just too self centered to notice. He got away with it because no one around him really paid attention to anything except themselves.
What wasnt explained?
Everyone in high society was so self centered they couldn't even remember other people's names. The lawyer who said he had dinner with Paul Allen in London was misremembering Paul Allen's name and mistaking him for someone else. Therefore, Bateman really killed Paul Allen.
rynor23 Actually in the book he really never killed anyone
@@theitfactorjameswheezer2852 Why do you think that?
Patrick batemans coworker Marcus hagelstrom tells the detective that Patrick was at dinner with him the night of Paul’s murder, in the final scene hagelstrom correctly calls Patrick ‘Bateman’ when asking for his view on the TV. This shows that hagelstrom knows who Patrick is and does not mistaken his identity and so proves that he was at dinner and must have been fantasising about killing Paul instead of actually doing it
"You saw the ad in the Times?"
I actually like the ambiguity of if he did or didn't kill them. I'm in the camp that he didn't kill them, considering that the murder get more and more outlandish and the cover-ups for them would just get harder to the point of being impossible even for the time period.
really didn't think this film would be this bad(twisted), I wanted to see his acting, that's all. But This movies is & was so confusing, as for the plot, I couldn't conclude what actually happened.
my take has always been this, yes he did kill all those people. The ending acts shows him spiral out of control and out of grasp with reality... so some of the ending scenes are hallucinations. Everyone over thinks this and it's actually just a really simplistic way to end it all. The sanity he kept hidden for so long finally escaped and he couldn't tell reality from fiction anymore.
This is the best comment I've seen, idk why I feel this is it
this is seriously one of my top 3 favorite films. i quote it all the time, i reference it all the time. truly an iconic film. also the hip to be square dance... yesss
What are your other top 3s?
What is there to qoute
I still don't get it
Bruce Wayne. That's probably because you're stupid......
Robin Hickman This is a fact I cannot deny. I appreciate and respect you for sharing your opinion.
Bruce Wayne yoda dies
bigpimpdaddy69 tgen what about the detective and the dead bodies in the flat??!
@@333junaid it was all in his head
Legends say he is still returning those video tapes.
While Chris Bale gave face to Pat Bateman, I seriously implore you to read the novel. It's one of the best written pieces ever, and gives understanding about the characters'' psyche.
Bateman, is Batman's alter-alter ego ...it's how he lets off steam.
Being THREE different personalities is enough to drive ANYONE insane.
Also, he's forgotten that he SUPED-UP his Glock to be able to fire Exploding Rounds (hence the police car blowing up), and that Alfred clears up after him, playing off the Real Estate lady.
Moreover, his uncanny ability to hit his targets from many floors up ...be it a staircase (Chainsaw - American Psycho), or car park spiral ramp (Himself landing on a car - The Dark Knight).
As for the ATM and the Cat ...this was the Joker having fun.
Im glad at least one other person understands this film
U know the difference between Leto and dafoe...
One is the joker the other needs to be
clubber Lang Moore preach
clubber Lang Moore Old Man Joker
SkyOut oh yea....nevermind, still Leto sucks
defoe has that amazing long face he should have been in batman 1989 as the joker you wouldnt have to do the rubber make up for the cheeks just paint him white and the red lipstick that big freakin grin but they went with a big star nicholson dont get me wrong he was great but even at that time too old and fat but so much freaking energy jackkearned that 5 million plus point and everything with his face on it but defoe would have been physically the joker
Paul Allen's family may have cleaned up the flat and covered up the crimes.
It is already mentioned how rich his family were and how they wanted to keep his disappearance out of the papers.
Maybe the family assumed, when the bodies were found in his flat, that he hadn't simply gone missing and had instead killed all of those people and was laying low?
This didn't explain anything? Naming the list of stuff that was unclear in the movie is not explaining it.
When PB first walks into work,after his workout scene, one of his co workers called him by a different name. It sounded similar to McClure. That,to me anyway,was a clue that something was up. IMO
So no one can agree, the director the writer, no one fucking knows? Lol
I definitely believe in the coverup theory. It’s supposed to demonstrate how morally bankrupt everyone is that they care more about maintaining the image of propriety than holding Bateman accountable. Also, the culture of hedonism, greed, and conformity is like a prison from which Bateman tries to escape through acts of violence. But he is denied catharsis because of the powerful people who protect him from any consequences. So he remains locked into the status quo and remains unable to express himself (homicide is a really bad means of self-expression, btw...).
This seems like the best explanation I've read.
If his obsession with music history makes him a nut, i guess i'm some sort of a nutcase myself. I hate when people ignore the lyrics😅
I haven't seen the whole film. But this video summarizes it brilliantly. Studying pre-medicine, sometimes you find pre-docs who are essentially sociopaths more concerned about building their image, wealth, and status more than assisting the sick and frail. Much like these fools. I've even seen a doctor post his sexual escapades with another single female doctor, photographing themselves in the act while still wearing scrubs. Absolutely disgustingly pitiful. I am so glad judgement exists and Hell. Some people are practically begging for it.
your compliment was sufficient , luis
It’s about the rich and how they will cover things up. His father owns a lot of the company, the things his son does are covered up by those rich above.
His son is just doing alot which is why the lawyer caught an attitude and the lady told him “don’t cause any trouble”. Like a bad child.
Thanks for not answering a single one of my questions👌
MadMax Ikr
I think that it’s a mixture of both reality and fantasy especially near the end as he’s gone fully insane and he loses his grip on reality
is it weird that this is one of those movies I can watch twice in a day?
Its also funny how the have all the same position. they are all vidce presidents of P&P. Makes me think they are actually all the same person and Bateman is shizoprenic.
Ending of no country for old men plz
check out screen prism's vid
...she dies...
1000 Subscribers Without Videos He kills her. Earlier in the movie he checks his shoes for blood after killing a guy, and he does the same after exiting her house.
I am no closer to understanding the movie than I was before watching this
Thanks. I kinda was really confused on this one, because I tried to believe that he isn't dreaming, but then that hallucination seen... :D first time (by explaining movie ending) Looper truly helps me.
An important aspect to me, in terms of did he actually kill anyone, is the unrealistic fantasy aspect of the weapons he uses. The chrome plated axe - this implies that he bought an axe then paid a shop to have it chrome plated... or how else to you end up with a polished shiny axe? The nail gun he holds to the girls head is pneumatic, it would require an air hose hooked up to a compressor to be able to fire, it is incapable of firing in that scene. The chainsaw would not continue running after he lets go of it due to multiple safety features.
Also there is that scene with him breaking up with his girl friend he is literally drawing the chainsaw murder scene and she didnt even question him.
2:17 was so much like Jim Carrey.
the best version of Batman, killed the worst Joker 😂😂
T Michael No the most overrated Batman killed the most flamboyant Joker.
Definitely the best film Batman. All the Keaton fanboys can get over it.
Thats not Kevin Conroy though.
Heath Ledger was the main character in Dark Knight and was by far the best Joker
@@justsomeguy8385 Keaton fans are men not boys trust me on that one.
I don't think it matters whether he did kill those people or not. I think this film is a pure representation of Jean's Baudrillard's ideas of postmodern society, the simulacra and simulation, just brought to the extremums. In a nutshell - Patrick, just like the viewers of the film, can no longer distinguish reality from the fake reality, aka - simulation. The many brands shown in the film, the lifestyle, people with identities so similar, that they even get confused who is who (and that happens to be "copies of the copies" how Baudrillard would probably say) - all of that is what creates the simulation, everything mentioned is a simulacra.
There were attempts to show Baudrillard's ideas even before, in "The Matrix", for example (actually, the whole idea of this film is based on Baudrillard's philosophy). But the difference is that in "The Matrix" there's a very clear line between the simulation and the real world, the distinction is very much visible, that's why the film failed in representing Baudrillard's ideas (even though film very much respects philosophy and even shows Neo holding the book "Simulacra and Simulation"). Baudrillard himself has seen it and didn't like "The Matrix" (not sure whether he saw American Psycho, though).
So yeah, also, notice how there's no particle "the" in the name of the film "American Psycho", so it could be implied, that the idea is not about a particular person, but the whole society.
I've only seen the movie all the way through once but I never thought that "it was all a dream." To me, it was clear that he was going more and more crazy throughout the movie but the reason he got away with it all had to do with the people around him and his own privilege along with theirs. The filmmakers clearly gave the impression from the very beginning that NONE of these people live in the "real world" like normal people and thus go about their own vices with those around them only feeding into them going further with it all.
Never realized how many cool actors were in this movie
In the novel, there is a line from Bateman, where he says something about doing something, and then says “even though none of this is really happening anyway”. When I read the book, a few years before the film, I too got the slight impression that it was a fantasy, an extreme jab at the shallow, materialistic, 1980’s world of the yuppie.
thanks for this video, it was just in time. i was just thinking about that awesome film in seen around 15 years ago.
One of the few movies that left me completely confused, in a good way!
Ithink what happened with the police and the ATM was in his head, even the Paul Allen part. Yes, the characters often mistake people for someone else, but his lawyer says he was in London, and there aren't a lot of people from their social circle in London
I think the movie starts off as portraying Patrick as a distinct psycho but slowly pushes towards the idea that patrick wasn't as different as everyone else in the show which confuses him.
3:52 I don’t get how his Lawyer calls him Davis as if he doesn’t know his own client is Bateman
Batman finally breaks his own rules
Aligns very nicely with the modern WSJ as well. Ben Fritz, for example.
I read somewhere that Bale took this role because his step mother and her friends protested the book because of its vulgar content
Holly Haley I read that aswell but I think she came out against the book after its release in the 80s and the film was much later ,it's unknown if he took the role to piss her off.
"Don't just look at it, eat it!"
My girlfriend wanted to go to dinner, but I told her Id be busy returning some videotapes. She wasnt happy with that answer so I dropped a chainsaw on her from 10 floors above.
Gotta go, reservations at Dorsia at 9pm.
Dont know if anyone else is watching this in 2020 but still the most complex and compelling movies of all time. Seriously a masterpiece
“American Psycho” and “straight forward” do not belong in the same sentence
For me he didn't kill anyone and made everything up in his mind, but he was capable of killing all those people that i will give it to him. But regardless of the fact that he did or didn't kill those ppl, Patrick Bateman is one of the finest sigma males in the Sigmaverse 😂
ok now can someone tell me how the three seashells in demolition man work
Patrick Bateman is the older brother to James Van Der Beek's character Sean Bateman in the movie Rules of Attraction. American Psycho and Rules of Attraction were both written by the same author. It makes even more sense now of why James Van Der Beek's character was so messed up too.
The author cleared this up years ago. When he wrote it he considered all the murders to have been part of his delusion. The entire movie is essentially from the viewpoint of someone who has already lost their mind, but none of it actually happens. Even his identity is confusing because the main character himself has lost his own identity amid his delusions. But it's widely acknowledged that regardless of the author's explanation it's still ambiguous since people will always come to their own conclusions regardless.
That's not the explanation attributed to Ellis in this video. Where are you getting your version from?
the filmmakers said the opposite so dont think so
Sounds like the filmmakers are deliberately entertaining theories about him being a real killer so people will keep talking about the film. But watching the film, it seemed I never considered for a second it wasn't all delusion. It seemed pretty obviously that he was suppose to be a guy that snapped because he was failing to make an impact - no-one remembered his name, and his office was a sad little office. He spent all day sketching murders in his book which was revealed at the end as final proof it was all delusion.
Well, the novel was straightforward, and also gave some hints about Bateman's childhood, that he was seemingly born to become psychotic like some serial killers seem to be such as Gacy or Bundy, so he wasn't just a guy who lost his mind as an adult. The sketchbook was also in the novel.
That doesn't mean the filmmakers had that perspective. Books and film don't have to line up.
it's all in his head. in the beginning of the movie you'll see Patrick point to Paul Allen on the other side of the restaurant. it's some random actor/extra, not Jared Leto.
I love how the opening monologue is just completely ignored by you guys as an explanation for the events of the movie. He is simply not there. All he is his routine and his facade. That should be your frame of mind for watching his actions.
This is a great explanation! I have to watch this movie again. now
Bro is in touch with humanity