MovieChat Forums > American Psycho II: All American Girl (2002) Discussion > I thought Patrick Bateman never killed a...

I thought Patrick Bateman never killed anyone.


Wasn't the whole twist that he wasn't psycho because he was a mass murderer but that he was psycho because it was all in his head? He imagined everything and dreamed about it so much he thought it was real?

How then, can they make a sequel if he never was a killer to begin with?

I saw this years ago and still have this question. I liked AP2. It was interesting for a movie by itself. As nothing spawned from AP. To help, sometimes I try to think of Amercan Psycho as set on Earth 616, whereas American Psycho 2 takes place on Earth 2431. No, wait--- ...Earth 2831.

Cuz, I'm a nerd like that. : )

-----

...rhymes with story

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Patrick did kill people in the AP, some of the deaths were real and the others imagined. My take is that he killed everyone up until the "please feed me stray cat" scene.

reply

[deleted]

In the book Patrick did kill _everyone_ that was shown in the movie. The reason that the apartment was all clean and the relator didn't want to talk about it was that it would be bad for business, and the shallow money making fanaticism was what the book was partially about. The stray cat killings were also real, as was that whole sequence. He just managed to get away with it because of his public persona.

reply

i like your justification for why the realtor wouldn't talk about it, but i totally disagree that the book offers any proof that the killings were real. i recently rewatched the film and believe that there is more evidence that it is all in his head, however both mediums are ambiguous, so i'm interested in why you believe the book proves that the killings were real.


AP is bret easton ellis' most psychologically complex book- too bad i'm scared to read it ever again.

reply

The fact that Bret Easton Ellis and the director of the film both say the killings were real ... makes them real.

reply

[deleted]

Nope, it doesn't. They just said their own take on the story. It is just as valid as anyone else's take.

reply

no... the author's "take" on the story that HE WROTE is more valid than anyone else's interpretation. If the author left it open to interpretation, then it invites differing readings. If he says "no, this is what happened in the story that I wrote" then you just have to accept that and deal with the fact that your interpretation, however fun it may be, is wrong.

reply

And why exactly would I "have to" do that? Regardless of what the director or author has said in interviews, what does the film do? Does it clarify whether Patrick actually commited the murders? Last time I checked, it did not. Thus, I guess it leaves the ending open to interpretation. That means that the ending is open to interpretation, and that anyone's interpretation is correct, as long as it makes sense.

"What happens in the story he wrote" is that it has an open ending. The author's interpretation expresses his personal views about the ending. It's no more correct than anyone else's.

I Sympathise with Lars Von Trier.

reply

Well you don't um... have to, but the author of a work of fiction tends to be the ultimate authority on it. You have bought into a reality they created. You can believe whatever you like about it despite it contradicting their statements, but at that point you are no longer considering their work really. You are reimagining their work.

What a lovely way to burn...

reply

[deleted]

I don't disagree, but it doesn't make it less ridiculous. This is the premise SpongeBob slash fiction writers begin from.

What a lovely way to burn...

reply

[deleted]

I liked the idea of everything being covered up because of who Patrick's father was. There were hints of his father being a powerful man, so maybe the relater was in on it or something. I dunno, it just seemed like the perfect way to fool the audience, if that was the real ending.

reply

The reason Bateman gets away with all the murders is not because of who his father is, but because in the shallow world of 80s New York that he exists, people are too self absorbed to see or care about any body but themselves and their own interests. Nobody can even tell their friends apart in the universe of this movie, which conveniently creates alibis for Patrick, who is the epitome of this decadent self-absorbtion. The movie (and book) is totally social commentary/satire, and it is genius!

reply

I agree. I believe that the ending to American Psycho is left up the the viewer or reader to decide. Either it was all in his head or it shows the shallowness of 80's corporate America. Either way, the ending is good. I would like to believe that it was the shallowness reason, because it has a stronger message.

reply

Nut just that.. Bateman is kind of an "anti-Frankenstein", he is a very beautiful, attractive person, being a monster and psycho inside (his name is even Bateman, reference to Norman Bates) this is in comparision to the litterary Frankenstein's monster of Mary Shelley's novel, who begin as a beautiful soul that looks like a monster.

reply

Ryan gets it.

reply

what about the scene in the book where he is chased by a park bench?

reply

sooo... you would've wanted someone who's not known or not someone from That 70's show or just not Mila Kunis?

reply

In the first American Psycho it wasn't a dream or something it was all real!!

reply

No, their intentions were that he really killed all those people, but that everybody was SOOOO wrapped up in themselves that nobody cared about some people being picked off.

Dear me! What is that unpleasant aroma? I fear the sewer may have backed up during the night.

reply

[deleted]

Theres a long running debate on whether Patrick actually killed anyone, some poeple think he did, others think it was all imagined and theres no real answer.
If you take into account this movie then you'd have to agree the murders were real, but most people discount this movie and try to find the truth from the first one only (and from the book).

reply

[deleted]

Just because the film is not true to the book does not mean it is "pointless." They are two separate things, and the film stands alone. Those who have not read the book may find the movies interesting in their own right. Those who have read the book may feel likewise. It's fine for you to not like the movie as an adaptation of the book, but to call people stupid for liking it makes you sound like a pretentious, whiny twat.

reply

Well if it's a standalone film it should have a standalone title to go with it.

reply

Why does the title matter?

reply

Buy the DVD. The director says in the commentary that she made a mistake in not making it clear he did kill those people.

reply

[deleted]

The point of the novel was that the 80's were such a mixed up time. Every one was on coke and trying to "fit in", yuppies became very homogenious. It is impossible to say if Patrick killed anyone because everyone is confused as to who's who. There's no way to tell if Paul was really seen in England or not. There is no way to know if any of the people he "killed" existed or if they are dead or alive. The book and movie both are made to be interpreted and no one can say either way if anyone was killed.

reply

But that's not the point of the novel. Brett Easton Ellis specifically said that Bateman did kill those people. The point of the novel was to show how the 80's was so full of corruption and self-obsession that these people couldn't even notice a psychopath sitting next to them.

reply

I can't believe you people are saying he killed everyone(some of you I mean). Did you see the ending conversation with the lawyer? That proves he at least did not kill Paul Allen, and a bunch of other clues proves he didn't kill quite a few other people(maybe no one). For example the police car blowing up, the kitten, the clean apartment and probably a few other things I missed.

The only thing I feel after shooting someone is recoil.

reply

Did you see the ending conversation with the lawyer? That proves he at least did not kill Paul Allen


So the lawyer had dinner with Paul Allen in London?? Didn't Paul Allen have dinner with Marcus Halberstram on Dec.20th while Halberstram was having dinner with Patrick Bateman while Bateman was actually having dinner with Paul Allen. And wasn't the lawyer talking to a guy named Davis????

I find your source unreliable. This is not an exit.

reply

[deleted]

Just because you pull conclusions from a work of fiction doesn't mean that what you got is the truth for everyone else. Just because you got the point doesn't mean it was the point intended. It's a basic understanding of literature and film - everyone is going to perceive things differently and so the most you can do to is hope others understand your (to them, lunatic) point by illustrating it for them.

reply

The lawyer thought he was Davis right? I'm confused if he killed anyone or not. I would say he didn't kill anyone but then again maybe he only killed one or two people and started to fantasize that he killed alot more people.

reply

Just so you know, not only were the killings real in American Psycho, but the movie was, for the most part, liked by Ellis. He disagreed with a few of Bales character adjustments, but for the most part it was well liked by him. All evidence that suggests that the murders were all in his head are there for literary purposes. They suggest absurdity towards the murders just as the shallowness from the business card scenes suggest absurdity towards the lifestyles portrayed by the characters. The movie, after all, is in fact more about the absurdity of that shallow 80's upscale, Wall Street-Reaganomic, excess equals success lifestyle that you see while watching, more so than about a murderer (or psycopath for that matter). The lifestyle that Bateman leads causes him the empty feelings that he describes over and over again throughout the movie. The world around him (and him himself)is so shallow and materialistic that he feels like he isn't even actually human. He has been numbed by it all. All the evidence to back this up is right in front of us while watching the movie. There are several visuals (like Bateman behind the glass plate of a taxi or his blurry reflection from a shiny menu at a restaurant)that help establish this idea, as well as the fact that all of the people around him are completely okay with the fact that they (Paul Allen and Bateman's attorney for instance)can't tell him from Marcus Halberstram or Davis(?). None of these things seem too realistic now do they? At the end of the movie, Bateman says that this is his confession and no catharsis is felt for telling. It was a waste of time to tell. This is a clear indication that it all really happened, but with his own exaggerations, spins, and lack of a logical time frame on the murders as he tells us the story(after all, he is a porn and horror movie fan). Although I haven't read the book (but I will now), I'm willing to bet that this is the case in it as well if you look hard enough.

reply

OMG PATRICK BATEMAN DID COMMIT THOSE MURDERS! WHEN ARE PEOPLE GOING TO REALISE THIS. SERIOUSLY! GAHHHHHHH. IF YOU WANT PROOF THEN READ THE FAQ ON AMERICAN PSYCHO PAGE!

reply

He did kill those people!! He did in the book, and the director of the movie (can't remember where i read this) said he regretted that everyone questioned if he killed people from the ending, that it wasn't his intention and the point was that he really did kill all those people.

edit: here, it even says in the FAQ of american psycho on imdb!


Did it really happen, or was it all a dream?

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

reply

I'm afraid you've missed the point of the novel. Patrick Bateman killed all the people in the book. The satire stems from the fact that he is never caught, because there is no sense of personal identity in his shallow, materialistic world.

reply

Actually, if you read the book it is more clear that Bateman most likely does kill people. One of the things that annoyed me about the movie is that hollywood tried to add in that "it's all in his head theme" when it wasn't really there. Yes, there were hints in hte book that people didn't notice his crimes, but the message of the book was that the materialism and glitz of the 1980s made the people so blind and self-centered that they wouldn't notice a murderer even if he dragged a body across their front steps. In the book he tries desperately to be caught, but no one gives a damn so he just keeps going. There's a humurous/sad scene in the book where his fiance Evelyn gets a puppy, and after 3 days Patrick kills it and eats it. Evelyn doesn't even notice that its gone. I liked the movie but I do find fault in the fact that it somewhat changed the message of the book from "people are self-centered and materialistic" to "Bateman is psycho."

reply

Well, the title of the novel lends itself to the whole "Batemam is a psycho" message. One scene that backs up what you are saying (from the book)is when he kills the child at the zoo and everyone starts freaking out. He casually walks away, while the death is obviously real. The movie certainly sets it up for the "all in your head" finale with helicopters and police chasing him while he runs into his office building. He wouldn't get away if that were real. Just remember what Bateman says, this confession meant nothing.

reply

Resg-1 - you have read the book. Unfortunately, the vast majority of imdb'ers who comment on Bateman haven't.
Yes - it was a satire on the 80's consumerism that created the infamous "yuppie" type.
Bateman was a Yuppie, (he also happeneded to be a psychopath); a true product of the times in which he lived. His closest friends regularly mistook him for other people, as his own identity took second place to the flash suits, flash business cards and regular dental flossing that became his social identity.
I loved the book, so brave. It could only ever have been written in the 90's. It reminds me of a line from Blackadder the fourth, "...who would ever notice just one more madman in a place like this!"

F.

Edit - I almost forgot to say...this film is utter nonscence when taken as a sequal to American Psycho. Infact, when judged on it's own merit, it remains well below mediocre at best. I must add though - old Billy Shatner's acting (and hair piece) gave the film a real surreal feel.

reply

The director was actually diappointed with the final cut for that reason... it suggested to the audience that it was all in his head.

reply

[deleted]

Whether he killed anyone is a hugely debated point, obviously, but, in a way, entirely beside the point. Either way, he was blatently psychotic, and it is there that the point lies. Ellis wrote it to be ambiguous, but I doubt he cares the angle at which it is taken.

reply

People think the movie proved that he killed people but he really didn't if you watch carefully. (By the way, to the person who said the lady who was selling the apartment hid the bodies, COME ON! Who doesn't call the cops when they find a closet full of dead people, and then clean it out and somehow manage to get rid of all the blood! Got to be a psycho of your own to do something like that.) Alot of the things he says and does, or at least he thinks he's saying or doing, in actuality he does them differently. Remember the "Murders and Executions/Mergers and acquisitions"? He never killed anyone.

reply

[deleted]

If you listen to the comentary on the dvd it says he killed all the ppl

"evrey day since i spend my time chassing Amy so to speak"- silent Bob

reply

if he did kill anyone. It was some homeless people, he never killed paul allen, and probably non one else.

"You'sa people gonna die"
-JarJar Binks

reply

He didn't kill anyone. The homeless man - he thought of killing him because he was a drain on society - plus did you not notice (in the movie that is) that when he was shooting the cops the cop car blows up and he looks at his gun with the 'wtf?' look on his face?

reply

which commentary the first or the second

reply

The second one for sure but i think the fist aswell. I know for a fact if you do the second one on the scene with the cops and stuff she says something along the lines of it was intended that he did kill ppl.

"evrey day since i spend my time chassing Amy so to speak"- silent Bob

reply

[deleted]

The points that you made could just as much point to the fact that he did kill people and no one cared because it was him. Maybe she got rid of the bodies cuz she knew that if she told the police that people were murdered there, the value would shoot down on the apartment. And for the other reason, look at who he is talking to when he says that. The yuppies who only care about clothes and their lifestyle. They couldn't care less about what Patrick was saying. When you say a movie as incredible as "American Psycho" has only one interpretation instead of just being YOUR opinion, you trivialize it and make it much less than it is. You have your opinion and others have theirs.

reply

Actually he did kill everyone. That's why the film is a satire because since he's a wealthy, seemingly respectable person he can get away with anything, including murder.

reply

This topic is filled with people saying things like "ACTUALLY, he did this..." or "REALLY, Bateman did this..."

Um... we're talking about a piece(s) of fiction. I've read the book. I've seen the movie. Both Ellis AND Harron say that Bateman committed murders but they're the ones who created the story and the film so of course they're going to say that just to add debate and intrigue/humor to their work; otherwise, it'd leave their story at a sealed dead end.

Anyhow, debating if Bateman "really" killed some, none or all of the people in the story is like debating if Peter Griffin "actually" turned his head into that of a moose's in an episode of "Family Guy": it's a comedic aspect of a work of fiction and trying to solve the riddle is a waste of time. It's subject to interpretation and while it seems logical to say that Bateman did in fact rape his family's maid as a teen, killed the homeless and maimed "Al" in the alley (for those of you debating if he killed Al, you're really invalidating your opinion: he doesn't even kill Al in the book; he runs into him again months later, blinded and scarred) and probably didn't murder the people in public or those with whom he worked like Paul Owen/Allen, it also could be viewed as an extremely, over-the-top, slapstick type of spin on the original comedic concept.

In conclusion, there is no answer. It's a *beep* story and none of you have the "correct" or "real" answers to these questions.

reply

there is no cofusion about this matter... he killed every single one. Read the book. This whole : omg so he didn't kill anyone ?
is pure *beep* he actully does kill everybody.
The ATM doesn't really say "feed me a straycat" though, it's suppose to be hes messenger that says that.
In the book the whole straycat scene actully happens ( it doesn't happen JUST like that but yeah ). He did kill everybody...stop bitching.

Please excuse my spelling.

And that's our TV-time for tonight *click*

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

In my opinion Bateman most certainly DID kill Paul - the fact that he was then seen some days later, is a play on mistaken identity (a theme prominant throughout the book).

The point Easton-Ellis was making then, was that even the closest friends of these superficial people, were undistinguishable from their worst enemies.
Now add a psychopthic killer into this society and bingo - you have the pefect parody for American capitalism gone mad.
Whether Bateman actually killed all these people - is beside the point. However, he most certainly did kill Paul, and Paul's closest friends never even missed him!

In Bateman's world (80's consumerist America) everybody competed and strived to become a player - greed and need were one and the same. This desire to wear the yuppie mask, resulted in a society of almost identical personalities (or identity-less perosnalities).

I recommend that you give the book a try - it really is an amazing work.

Fruit.

reply

Once again, the point of the movie and the book is that he can do anything and get away with it because of how self-centered the yuppie society is. It's not that no one hears the chainsaw, it's that no one cares. And if you say, "well that's unrealistic," I'll say, "well it's a piece of art." If you think there's never been a piece of art that's strecthed the boundaries of realism to make a point I must say that you are wrong. Also, Detective Kimball, upon first speaking to Patrick, mentions that Stephen Hughes claimed to have eaten lunch with Paul, but when the detective looked into it he realized that Hughes had mistaken Herbert Ainsworth for Paul. Given the frequency of people mistaking individuals for others in the film, it can be understood how Patrick could later potentially mistake Stephen Hughes for his lawyer Harold Carnes at the end of the movie, especially considering "this" character (and I put this in quotation marks because he could be either Stephen, Harold, or anyone else really) mistakes Bateman for someone who's last name is Davis. That alone doesn't nessecarily prove that Bateman killed Allen, however if you keep your ears and eyes open through the whole film you'll find enough clues to prove that he did, but I wouldn't want to ruin the fun of looking for them.

reply

You're completely wrong. As you said, read the book. The stray cat scene happens through Patrick's recollections of things not being quite right when he says that an ATM told him to do just that. Using the word "actually" about a fictional movie is dumb.

reply

This movies was about morals.... nothing else.. does it matter?? the movie made the viewer think.. how many movies make people think about it after it is over?

reply

I think people are missing the point saying do you really think nobody would hear the girls screaming that's the point this world is so self involved that nobody cares, when he is dragging the body into the trunk of the car the guy who stops him doesn't even notice anything strange all he cares about is the brand name on the bag. It's a satire and it's over the top and if you listen to the commentary yes some of it is in his head but he is a serial killer and his hell is he won't be punished for it because nobody cares.

reply

[deleted]

I know for a fact that Patrick Bateman killed everyone, because *I am Patrick Bateman*. I have killed transients, prostitutes, and of course Paul Allen.

reply

[deleted]

Because I had dinner with Paul Allen twice in London, just ten days ago. Now if you excuse me...

reply

People say that they know for a fact that Ellis made the book to be ambiguous are either completely wrong or have not actually read the book. The film took a durastically different direction than the book. In the book, it was completely obvious that he killed everyone

The point of the book is Bateman's struggle to be recognized in the world. He actually says in the book that he is in his own personal hell because no-one will catch him and recognize him for what he has done.

And for the argument that the Lawyer says that he had dinner with Paul Allen twice, I think its only right that we examine a few key points of this scene

1. He thinks Patrick Bateman is a guy named Davis.
2. He is Batemans lawyer, and actually makes fun of Bateman because he is so convinced that it is this guy Davis.
3. By this point in the movie, we have already established at least one other instance when someone has mistakenly said that they had dinner with Paul Allen. (There are more instances of people saying they saw him in the book)
4. Through the ENTIRE movie people are CONSTANTLY getting names mixed up, its a prevalent theme throughout the book and the movie.

In conclusion, the murders happened. It's in the book. It's on the movie commentaries. If you ignore these facts, you choose to because you don't want to see the truth. THE MURDERS HAPPENED.

reply

[deleted]

Though personally I agree with you, and I do believe he did kill at least most of the people, I don't think it's possible to say it is obvious either way.
I have read the book several times, and my x was read it religiously. Both of us agree that the book leaves either possability open.

reply