Was the lawyer lying or did he really hallucinate killing him?
Was the lawyer lying or did he really hallucinate killing him?
Ian Roberts
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
Lucas Reyes
>ATM tells him to feed it a stray cat
>"Was he hallucinating?"
Xavier Bailey
Well no shit he was hallucinating at that point in time, but that was weeks after the first murder of the homeless guy. How much was reality and how much was his own mind toying with him?
Benjamin Morris
My head cannon tells me he hallucinated just about everything.
Nathan Cook
What if American Psycho is secretly a Truman Show adaptation where he never figured out he was in a Tv Show?
Hudson Nguyen
That was real retard.
>Hurr durr atm no ask for cat in weal wife huh huh huh huh huh
Fucking brainlet, its a move
People sayinh thing like "Hurr durr da movie not real cuz i say so, all in imagination" are retard tbqh imho
It makes sendse for atm to ask for cat in movie, he killed a dog in that scene earlier its not any differenter. Fucking dummy
Carter Anderson
Everything was real except for Bateman's shooting spree. Everyone who mentions seeing Bateman or Allen in places that contradict what happens on screen just mistook them for someone else, since they're all so vapid and self-absorbed. Bateman is never punished due to everything working out so conveniently because his father covered up his crimes. Detective Kimball was paid to do said covering up as well as prompt Bateman to "rehearse" an alibi with his interviews.
Levi Phillips
Someone please explain the agent scene to me in full
youtube.com
Was she involved in the clean up?
Alexander Thomas
The reason I'm asking is because I watched it for the first time last night and some of the murders looked pretty lucid and others were very heavily implied to be in his mind, since he either takes hardcore drugs before them or they're retrospectively shown to have no consequences, like the apartment with a bunch of dead hookers being completely normal within a few days.
The scenes with Detective Kimball were bizarre to me, because it seemed like he knew from the beginning Bateman was a killer, but the lawyer saying he had dinner with Allen seems to imply he wasn't actually one of the people that died. But everyone constantly messing up Bateman's name could lend some evidence to him mixing up names, but why would anyone else involved with the company be in London?
Also with Kimball, I was expecting Bateman to have some sort of appreciation for him since he also enjoyed Huey Lewis and the News, but I guess he was too prideful to make anything if it, considering he said Lewis sang "too black?"
Kevin Roberts
Who cares? Book was shit, movie is awful
Isaac Rodriguez
It's intentionally ambiguous, but there were a few possibilities:
1. He killed everyone and other people (the lawyer, the real estate agent, etc) cleaned up everything for him out of their own greed.
2. He killed everyone but their society is so atomized (everyone is interchangeable, constant mistaken identity) that nobody really noticed. In this scenario the lawyer was being honest about thinking he had lunch with Paul, but it was yet another case of mistaken identity.
3. He hallucinated the whole thing, they were always just fantasies
Blake Robinson
Is this a deleted scene? I have seen this movie 3 times but i have never seen this before.
Eli Garcia
t.speedwatcher
Jose Ward
>The scenes with Detective Kimball were bizarre to me
According to Dafoe he shot all his scenes in 3 different ways: believing Bateman didn't do it, already knowing Bateman did it, and thinking Bateman might have done it but not being sure.
They then spliced different shots from these 3 versions together, specifically to make his character seem bizarre and inscrutable.
Adam Thompson
How did you miss it?
What's a speedwatcher?
Aaron Lewis
why are there only brainlets on Yea Forums?
Leo Morgan
>AXCHUALLY
cringe. either contribute or don't
Austin Barnes
As mentioned in , it can be read a few different ways:
1. He killed Paul, she knows he died there and is covering it up and trying to quickly sell the place without anyone finding out
2. He didn't kill anyone, from her perspective he's just a random guy who walked into an open house unannounced and is acting erratically
3. Somewhere in between these two. Maybe he killed Paul and she doesn't know, she just thinks he's an unexpected weirdo
Logan Walker
The shooting spree happened too.
Christopher Phillips
>blowing up a car with a pistol
what nah
Oliver Perry
It wasn't an open house. She lied to him and that's when she knew he was the killer.
Cooper Brooks
No i can't be the retarded one here this scene was not in it the last few times i watched it. I remember every single other fucking scene. I just checked again and the scene is there but i am fully and utterly convinced i entered an alternative universe in which the scene was added. I absolutely unequivocally refuse the notion that i simply missed this scene in my multiple previous views. I am not from this timeline.
Oliver Harris
>I will not accept the fact that I may not have been paying full attention to this scene or that my memory may be a little faulty, as all people's memories are wont to be
>I'm from another dimension
Okay Mandela retard
Logan Barnes
There was no scene in the movie
Don't come back...
Samuel Nelson
>he's not confident enough to know when he has transferred realities
>"oh wow all this deja vu and false memories sure are weird! I must have a really malfunctioning brain."
Kinda cringe.
Matthew Nelson
Dubsman: The Live Action Movie Adaption is interesting upon rewatches because there are many different viable interpretations:
1. It's all real, everything you see in the movie happened. Bateman kills numerous people, eats brains, blows up a car with one shot from a pistol, ATMs really ask users to feed them stray cats, etc.
This is probably the least believable option, but it must be mentioned anyway
2. None of it is real. Bateman kills noone. The scenes of him killing hookers and shit are just products of his delusions, and/or his fantasies born from a boredom-fueled, meaningless corporate yuppie existence. He has vengeful and violent fantasies because he's bored, and pretty fucking strange. We see him taking prescription drugs from a legit RX bottle in one scene, which could be Seroquel or other powerful mood alternating medications for people with illnesses like affective schizophrenia.
3. Third option. Some of it is real, and some of it isn't. The obvious "fake"ness of some scenes like the ATM and cat, is contradicted by scenes like where Bateman visits the apartment where he murdered Paul Allen, and there are realtors there scrubbing the floors with Lysol and disposing of any evidence. Which is all done in an attempt to sell the place, reinforcing themes of meaningless corporate greed and the amoral, "make money at any and all costs" philosophy of sleaze that exists in the professional world. It also seems nonsensical for this elaborate situation to be a fantasy. This viewpoint is supported by the many scenes of characters talking about Bateman - they all think he's a complete dork. We have to take their perspective of Bateman into account. Bateman may think of himself as this inhuman, cold, remorseless badass alpha, but most everyone he knows sees him as a milquetoast dork. Should an intelligent person believe Bateman, who has shown himself time and time again to be a unreliable narrator, or what everyone else around him believes?
Daniel Peterson
>3. Third option.
Exactly. One can only imagine what hallucinations a psycho murderer actually has.
Alexander Edwards
You fucking imbeciles
youtube.com
youtube.com
Nathan Gutierrez
You're going to tell me the ATM literally told him to feed it a stray cat? I already said most of the murders seemed real, user.