VehiclesFashionRecipesBlogsHuntTravelsSportFunHandmadeITEducation
Mini-Games
x

x
zakruti.com » Humor, fun and entertainment » Looper
The Ending Of American Psycho Finally Explained

The Ending Of American Psycho Finally Explained

FBTwitterReddit

video description

Rating: 4.0; Vote: 1
The Ending Of American Psycho Finally Explained Achilles94: I know I watched American Psycho for a long time and I must admit I thought it was real but I never really pay attention and when I seen the ATM say feed a stray cat and when your boss up there two cops cars I realized it was all in his head. and he lives in a society where everybody's has a self ego and pretty much everybody is the same that's why they always have mistaken identity. So bottom line it was all in his head but it brings more questions about American Psycho 2 because at the beginning of the movie young girl who had a babysitter I invited Patrick Bateman and she witnessed him killing the babysitter and she killed Patrick Bateman. But it really looks like this movie A lot of people didn't understand it butt it was all in his head but when they got reviews they just played along with it to make American Psycho 2
Date: 2020-07-14

Comments and reviews: 8


He is a sick man, everything that has happened was all in his head. The actual occurance of the event does not align with his memories simply start with the story is narrated in first person point of view. It demonstrated drug use and dosage, materialism, the point was to showcase the inner demon which is what he described as his true self while his body as a shell. There are clues in almost all the scenes where the killings are made. The fantasy of him blowing up police cars, killing security guards with helicopter searching, whole building occupied with bodies, video tapes, targeted by the investigator and right after he gets back to usual routine is giving enough hints more and so forth. The note book that his secretary gone through is the only real part of him being expressed on paper, goresome and those were the imaginary picture he live in, on the flip side he is hiding all these energy within him waiting to escape and finally release his inner evil, kill spree of everyone around him. Highlight of the scene where ge took pills on the phone while speaking to his secretary shows that he certainly was relying on it to keep himself in controll, he is a psycho, american psycho marking the social issue of the time and revealing a true evil.
reply

I like to think that of course no one cared or believed if he did but since this movie is a gross representation of yuppie culture and how homogeneous it is everyone was confused with each person. Everyone got names confused, and mistaken them for similar people because everyone looked the same. So tbh I think Patrick just walked in the wrong apartment, its not far-fetched to think the one next door or above could have the exact same layout. what old lady trying to sell an apartment in their right mind would clean up several dead bodies. Paul Allen confused him for someone, his lawyer did, several door man called him other people, and he had a convenient alibi because people cant distinguish between each other. Its very possible he got confused which apartment he walked into. The only creepy part or person who knew he did it but couldnt prove it was probably Willem Dafoe's character, the detective.
reply

The problem with the explanation that Patrick Bateman is a real serial killer is the fact that it literally ruins the plot twist at the end. The truth is American Psycho lives in the realm of a dark comedy. Is it any wonder that Dexter pretty much mimics the beginning of this movie or that the characters have a lot in common. I digress. When I first saw American Psycho I hated the first half because it just reminded me of b rank slasher film, however the plot twist works so well that it turned into a genius work of art. So the director really needs to just leave the story alone and let people think that it was all in his head. If you buy into the theory that he is a real serial killer then you might as well praise the crap sequel. lol
reply

I think the movie is about bateman and only bateman. He killed his coworker and got away with it after his lawyer granted alimony. But that doesn't happen before he comes clean to his lawyer over phone. I think his lawyer is the one who got rid of every evidence and cleaned the apartment. Because lawyer needs bateman's money. The movie is about AMERICAN psycho. And it's obvious that no matter what you do. You get away with it if you have money. As far as the prostitutes go the first threesome is real. Because they are visibly injured. But the second time isn't as you see the Elizabeth sitting in the same restaurant and eating. So even bateman doesn't know that his money has saved him.
reply

The movie shows how everyone is just as apathetic as he is. They care more about status than relationships. Nobody remembers anybodies name in the office meaning all testimonies to the detective are wrong. The property owner cleans up the dead bodies so the value doesnt go down. Nobody cares about the screaming woman in the building and chainsaw cause they're too busy living their lives. The movie just shows how you dont need to be a serial killer to be heartless. He killed all those people it's not imaginary. He just got away with it ironically through everyone not caring and being to involved in their own lives. It's a critique of how urban life has become.
reply

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 isnt there to demonstrate that Bateman is a man who knows what hes talking about. Its 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.

reply

The author is himself a psychopath of course; it takes one to know one, and THE ONLY reason he wrote the book is because. he thinks he deserves sympathy. It's a cry-out for sympathy, something he himself is incapable of to express. Should he suffer because he the way is his, the way he was born? Does an animal deserve to suffer because it was born an animal? Do we, people who are not so unfortunate to have been born a psycho or sociopath, not care about animals? I propose thereof that indeed he does deserve that empathy, that sympathy, that what he so tragically misses.
reply

I definitely believe in the coverup theory. Its 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.
reply
Add a review, comment






Other channel videos