American Psycho (2000) - User Ratings and Movie Reviews

"Murders and Executions", by DavidCyrus

By , May 25, 2004

Bateman describing his job as "murders and executions" is a totally normal bastardization of his real job title, "mergers and acquisitions". Slight changes to job titles, especially if they can make the job sound shocking or funny, is common throughout corporate America. It is exactly the kind of slang that rich Wall Street kids would use in the '80's, and therefore it shocks no one when he says it in the film.

I fall into the camp that takes every image in the film as "real", excepting only the message on the ATM. If the director had intended to show fantasized conversations or activities, he could have used a number of visual effects to at least suggest it.

I wish I read the book before seeing the movie, by

By , February 28, 2004

I really enjoy what others have said about this movie. I watch this movie over and over to try to put together in my head what exactly is going on in Bateman's head as well as in Ellis' head. I am from New York and I grew up there in the '80's, so I feel very much at home with the thrust of the satire as well as the social commentary. That said, I think that Bateman both desired to fit in and desired to be noticed. I agree that there was a great deal of tension between those two odds. I think Bateman actually did kill the people in the movie, that these murders were not just in his head. The sheer indifference others show to Bateman's obvious murders always struck me as being a show of the extreme callouseness of New York City society, furthered on my the insulation his money gives him from his crimes. Remember the real-life death of Kitty Genovese? She was sexually attacked in New York for hours; though she screamed for help and her neighbors knew it, nobody got involved. Wealthy people know when they have a deviant in their midst, they would just rather ignore or cover up the evidence of it rather than have scandal touch their lives. The scene where the apartment was suddenly let, where it had been cleared of dead bodies and gore drove that point home to me. Bateman goes on a crazed killing spree, blowing up cop cars and being sought after by a police helicopter. He makes a frantic phone call to his attorney. *Then* all of a sudden, the evidence of his crimes has been wiped away, and the attorney disavows any knowledge of Allen's death by saying that he saw Allen at a party. The phone conversation, as an admission of guilt, is made socially acceptable by calling it a joke and making light of it. If a lawyer is willing to engineer the removal of bodies, then why not also remove spoken evidence of guilt? The true joy of this movie is that if I watch it again, I may change my opinions again. There are so many variables at play, and they are masterfully worked. I think, however, that I will read the book before I watch the movie again. As I understand it, the movie cut excluded quite a lot (like the infamous Godiva chocolate scene). Maybe it will shed some more light.

Bateman didn't actually kill, by Peter M.

By , February 23, 2004

True about Bateman not killing anyone. What really gives this fact away is that he gets into a shootout with the police and wins. This is really ridiculous, Bateman stands in the middle of the street in plain sight shooting, kills two policemen in only a few shots and blows up the cruiser? Another giveaway is dropping a chainsaw 6 stories and hitting the fleeing woman? Check near the end if the movie when Chloe Sevigny is looking through his notebook and finds the "doodling" of terror and death, which is meant to reinforce his fantasies of killing which are portrayed in the film. The very end is when we find out from his lawyer he hasn't killed Paul Allen at all.

Agreed, by Brian Robert Davis

By , December 4, 2003

Yo Darin P. Ironically, I have a friend with that name, different spelling. Anyways, that's a good theory. Ellis should have, or could possibly have, written the book to where Bateman was a serial killer wannabe, by never actually killing anybody or as you say maybe he did and us guessing that is part of the "genius" of the book. Because that ending had me really in an uproar when I first watched it. It was pretty frickin' annoying how he confessed in the dark office over the phone, then the next day, or whenever, he talked to his lawyer and the lawyer said that it wasn't funny; this whole joke he was doing(re; his phone call confession) and that none of these things took place. Then the stupid ending. It overall, to me, equals a good theory and pretty much, in the humble opinion of this author's mind, should have been that way. Thanks.

American Psycho, by Darin P

By , December 2, 2003

This movie fascinates me for the reasons I will discuss in the following paragraphs. My comments here are really only a sampling of what I have seen in the movie to support my view. Also note that I have not read the book so my comments only apply to the movie. There is only one person with whom I have discussed this movie who fully shares my opinion that Bateman does not actually kill anyone at all. Quite frankly, I am surprised that this view is not more widely shared. Even the movie critic community seems to take the violence literally. While Bateman appears to be truly psychopathic and he certainly displays dangerous tendencies; perhaps even hurting certain people such as the various prostitutes he employs, it seems to me that the real "terror" in this movie is that Bateman is a partially functional psychotic. We are told that Bateman is idly rich and only works so that he can "fit in". Bateman's desire to "fit in" is at odds with his "alter-ego's" desire to "be noticed". These conflicting desires seem to consume Bateman as he does such a good job of fitting in that he becomes completely enraged by the fact that he doesn't stand out. When he is continually mistaken for someone else by Paul Allen (Allen does stand out and is apparently admired by his peers) this drives Bateman over the edge psychologically. Bateman wants to kill Allen and I am sure even thinks he has killed Allen but, as we learn at the end of the movie, Bateman has not killed Allen. One should not be left wondering about this: Bateman has not killed Allen. When you consider the scenes in the film after Bateman "kills" Allen, it all makes sense. We see Bateman chop up Allen and then he drags him through the lobby of his apartment in a Jean Paul Gauthier garment bag? In the scene where Bateman is walking through the lobby you can actually see the blood trailing behind the bag. Bateman then throws the dripping bag into a taxi while people he knows look on? Bateman has bodies on hooks in an apartment one evening and the apartment is totally vacant, painted white and for sale by someone who doesn't even know him the next day? Bateman runs naked through the hallways of this apartment, covered with blood, with a running chainsaw which he throws six stories down the stairwell, hitting a naked prostitute in the back killing her and absolutely no one knows? If the screaming and the chainsaw and the dead pro didn't upset people I would think that the bloody footprints leading from and back to the killing rooms in the apartment might. Not even OJ could get away with that one. I just don't understand how these scenes can be interpreted two ways. They are comical in their ridiculousness and, in my view, clearly designed to indicate that none of this is actually happening. I believe that there are many other scenes in the movie where Bateman's detachment from reality is shown; one being the "murders and executions" scene where I am sure that Bateman does not even actually says this, other than in his head. Examples of other such scenes are when he is at the bar ordering a drink and talking about "playing with her blood" and the scene in the drycleaners. If you ever watch this film again, pay close attention to the editing of these scenes. I believe that we are given clues all along that Bateman is only saying these things in his head. Just some food for thought from a movie fan.