4466331 Not particularly. It's more about the apathy and general passiveness that Patrick feels about his murders. Hence the chilling ending monologue.
4466342 actually no. while some is up to interpretation, largely it seems that as one of his victims was alive and encountered only ten days prior, and he killed him much longer before, it would seem all of his psychosis and murder was in his head than actual acts in reality. how else does a man shown dead have lunch long after he was murdered?
4466369 That's interesting. I'll have to watch the movie again and look for that specific detail. It's entirely possible that I simply missed that aspect.
4466392 thinking mostly the book it is based on. the makers of the movie like to think that he did kill them but not in the overblown way shown. the book however leaves it up to interpretation, and seems likely cause, as sit says, a man he murdered a long time before someone had lunch with twice since them. if he had killed that man, it would have to have been a rare specimen of sapient zombie.
4466400 Good to know. I'm a fan of ambiguity, especially in cases like this. I suppose the reason I didn't catch that detail was because I was focused more on his emotional responses to the murders, or lack thereof. To me, it seemed the driving point of the story was the fact that he was so coy and able to easily escape getting caught. (For the most part.) That may or may not be the point. Oh well.
but isn't American psycho acutally about him not being a murderer at all, and all of his murders are halucinations?
4466331 Not particularly. It's more about the apathy and general passiveness that Patrick feels about his murders. Hence the chilling ending monologue.
4466342 actually no. while some is up to interpretation, largely it seems that as one of his victims was alive and encountered only ten days prior, and he killed him much longer before, it would seem all of his psychosis and murder was in his head than actual acts in reality. how else does a man shown dead have lunch long after he was murdered?
4466369 That's interesting. I'll have to watch the movie again and look for that specific detail. It's entirely possible that I simply missed that aspect.
4466392 thinking mostly the book it is based on. the makers of the movie like to think that he did kill them but not in the overblown way shown. the book however leaves it up to interpretation, and seems likely cause, as sit says, a man he murdered a long time before someone had lunch with twice since them. if he had killed that man, it would have to have been a rare specimen of sapient zombie.
4466400 Good to know. I'm a fan of ambiguity, especially in cases like this. I suppose the reason I didn't catch that detail was because I was focused more on his emotional responses to the murders, or lack thereof. To me, it seemed the driving point of the story was the fact that he was so coy and able to easily escape getting caught. (For the most part.) That may or may not be the point. Oh well.
I rather liked this. Continue, plez.