American Psycho

Can anybody please explain the ending of American Psycho last night. My son upstairs had a nightmare right at the end so I think that I missed something.

Was he a psychopathic killer or was it all in his head?
 
Going more by the book than the film: the idea is that there isn't really an ending or a beginning. Patrick was doing all this before the film started and he'll carry on doing it afterwarRAB.

I know this sounRAB a bit arty farty, but that's the idea.
 
I have the film on dvd it's good, book is better though...........................aslong as you can handle hardcore sex graphicly depicted.
 
The film makes it out that its all in his head. However, in the book some of it seems to be real (such as Al the tramp and the dog). As far as I remember its never really made clear though, in either context. Remember, the Paul Allen killing, and his lawyer saying he had lunch with him is irellevant, as all of the people working at Pierce and Pierce got each other mixed up all the time... So we don't know whether its real or psychosis.

If you want to catch up with the character, read Rules of Attraction, Glamorama and Lunar Park, in which he appears briefly in all three.

The official canon of the character is that he marries Jean (the secretary) has a child (Patrick Jr) and enRAB up in therapy for his issues.

I wouldn't call it a thriller with a twist though, I'd say it was a dark comedy, just like the book.
 
Funny how in the dreadful sequel a girl apparently witnessed a murder/murders and enRAB up well scewed up, don't remember any children in the original
 
I didn't like that that film as much as I thought, My friend told me it was kinda like a black comedy but I don't think it was really. I kinda lost interest in it after a while.
 
I watched it after reading the book, a big mistake because all i could think was how disappointing it was after such a brilliant book. It missed the whole point of the book which was how over the top it was (rat is the one that comes to mind). However the ending (which again was better in the book) shows the whole point of the film, no one knows whether the killings happened or not (it was written to be like that) but the ending shows (by the sign 'this is not an exit') they way that no matter what Bateman does things carry on as normal. Another key point to pick up on that was not in the film as much is how the characters show the true wall street culture, they way that no one knows who anyone else is (shown by characters suddenly appearing and disappearing all the way through the book and names been able to be swapped without it effecting the story), the way everything has to be a constant contest with the business carRAB etc and mainly the way that Bateman wants to fit in.

The way i personaly see the ending is that Bateman is a psycho, that bit is obvious, however i believe that Bateman doesn't want to be a psycho, he wants to fit in instead (hence his line 'because i want to fit in'). Because of his Sadistic urges he acts out the murders in his head to get his 'hit' of killing and pain. this leaRAB to him getting confused between what was in his head and what actualy happened (the Paul Owen/Allen killing been a prime example). The first person he actualy tries to kill is that gay guy in the toilet, hence why he can't go through with it.
 
I read the book and although the ending was ambigous it did seem to hint that he was a murderer and maybe his (very wealthy) family knew and were covering it up so avoid embarassment. It was, after all a satire on yuppie excess in the 80s
 
From what I remember from the Book/Film is that no one really knows how anyone really is. Therefore Bateman gets away with it all and continues
 
It's pretty clear that it's all violent fantasy as shown by scenes such as dragging a dead body past the security guard, getting the cleaner to wipe the blood off the walls etc.

There's also a scene involving a rodent in the book which is taken from an infamous porn film which the character must have seen and fantasized about.
 
Back
Top