why are there so many retards who insist its all in his head and nothing is real when the author and directors have explained multiple times that the murders are real
It has psycho in the title. Its quite clear hes a murderer. Not only that but why do they love this theory so much? even if it was true, itd be way more boring if it was all a hallucination
Movies like American Pyscho, Taxi Driver, the Sopranos and anything with Ryan Gosling in it is just MCU capeshit but for incel Any Forums users that use Any Forums, Any Forums, Any Forums, Any Forums, and Any Forums almost exclusively
I don't use any of those boards
We're on Any Forums, which I listed
Nope
You're a schizo, this is /m/. All about the giant robots.
So are you incel.
>author and directors have explained multiple times that the murders are real
not true
theyve fucking interviewed them and they said the murderers are very real. Specifically to stop that bullshit theory
its about how the elite can get away with anything because of their wealth
James Bond is just a codename that gets passed on from agent to agent
Gay reddit garbage.
all of them are kino and a commentary on the human condition
capeshit is capeshit
If you wanted "commentary on the human condition" you should read books instead of watching movies
Czechem
Because movie Bateman is a watered down version of the book Bateman and in a desperate way to blur the lines like the book does, they gave movie bateman hallucinations. So, movie Bateman didnt kill but book Bateman killed
If it's the Charlie Rose interview you're talking about then no they don't say that, Mary Harron said she didn't intend the final scene to be interpreted as being all in his head, she wasn't referring to the rest of the film which is purposely ambiguous
Guinevere the person that co-adapted the novel says that eveything was really happening. Mary the director and the other person adapting the novel says that she wanted an ambiguous ending just like the book. Bret the author says iirc that he never really was concerned with that question while writing the book and that there's no a real answer because it's not relevant for the story he was trying to convey
but the book doesnt have the hallucinations either, so there is no real reason to assume its all in his head, instead of being a cover up
What?
>I'm having a sort of hard timepaying attention because my automated teller has started speaking to me,sometimes actually leaving weird messages on the screen, in greenlettering, like "Cause a Terrible Scene at Sotheby's" or "Kill the President"or "Feed Me a Stray Cat," and I was freaked out by the park bench thatfollowed me for six blocks last Monday evening and it too spoke to me.
Because the director badly fucked up the ending by including the big shootout. Bateman losing his grip on reality works on paper since it's so much more ambiguous and happens more gradually, in the film everything is pretty much straightforward until he's suddenly blowing up cars by shooting them and taking out multiple police officers in a big shootout. At that point you're basically forced to assume that at least some of it is in his head, since the scene is so far removed from reality. Then coupled with the scene after where Paul's body is gone and he is apparently still alive in another city, most viewers will be forced to assume Bateman actually didn't kill Paul since we've just seen he is clearly delusional.
Of course he did actually kill Paul, and the actual message is that the estate agent would rather cover up the murder to retain the properties value, and the lawyer thought he saw Paul because he is unable to distinguish anybody because they're all the same. But the explosive shootout right before all this confuses the message because it's telling you Patrick is insane and delusional.
Also, check'em
The movie just fucks up the timing of it. In the book weeks go by between the rampage and the ending, so it's much more clear that they covered everything up, while in the movie it seems like it happens overnight.
thats a relief, good to know