• There is a short sex scene.
  • There is soft core porn briefly on a TV.
  • A man is seen in a tanning bed, his pubic hair is visible briefly (from the side, so it’s hard to make out and no genitals are seen)
  • Patrick’s butt is briefly seen when he showers.
  • A notebook contains drawings of nude women. This is shown at the very end.
  • Not too graphic nudity (buttocks and a brief shot of breasts). Two brief sex scenes – one is fully clothed and the other is completely under the covers so no nudity or graphic content
  • Female breasts and nipples seen briefly on a few occasions, but stimulating male nudity is avoided.
  • The original novel’s elements of rape and much more explicit sex are cut out of the movie entirely.
  • A man attempts to strangle another man in the bathroom. The victim mistakes the perpetrators voilence as a sexual advance, the perpetrator is upset/disturbed by this and leaves the bathroom.
  • 4 nude women appear when Patrick run naked to kill another women , 3 of them appear naked in the background in transparent bags and the other female appear death near a bathub

Film review:Translated by www.rabudo-ru.com


Except for one scene, the film seems to make sense.

Since the publication of the original novel in 1991, the debate about American Psycho has not stopped. When this work, once called unfilmable, was finally put on the screen in 2000, the debate about it continued. In addition to all kinds of comments on the theme and expression of the works, there is a problem that has been perplexing readers and viewers. That is, whether the murders shown in the works were actually committed by the protagonist Patrick Bateman or imagined?

Just as the film is the object of discussion, the film has never given a clear and clear answer. The realists claim that Bateman did commit several murders, including the murder of Paul Allen. In essence, the work not only presents Bateman’s abnormal character and behavior directly and in detail, but also satirizes the secular and alienated relationship between people under the condition of today’s material extravagance. The characters in the film often call each other by wrong names. Even at the end, when Bateman confessed his criminal experience to his lawyer, he was mistaken for Davis by his lawyer. According to this reasoning, the lawyer claims that his lunch with Paul Allen in London is also likely to be the performance of another “misunderstanding” event: in the era of exaggeration, the relationship between names and people seems to have long been separated, and interpersonal relationships gradually tend to be superficial and stylized. As a gold collar group of investment banks, Bateman confessed his crime but no one believed it. This can not be said to be a black humor mockery of reality.

However, the illusionist side seems to have more reasons: all Bateman’s crimes are carried out in a closed relationship with the victims, and there is no direct evidence to prove the authenticity of these cases, Moreover, Bateman has repeatedly hinted or confessed that he committed the murder, but no one accepted it (even in the last police chase, there were no onlookers except the police and doorman who were finally killed); Another more direct reason is that the evidence of his crime will disappear mysteriously (for example, the blood left by the victim can not be completely removed without leaving a trace, but Bateman seems to have done so, otherwise many cases will not be investigated with the crime of disappearance).

Illusionists have the upper hand, but apart from one scene in the film, the plot does make sense. It is the existence of this scene that makes the murder uncertain between reality and illusion.

Towards the end, Bateman went to Paul Allen’s original residence, but found that it had been renovated and the remains originally stored had mysteriously disappeared. The reaction of an old woman (which seems to be understood as Paul’s family) was puzzling: after she found Bateman, she mysteriously and slightly panicked and asked him to leave quickly without causing them any trouble. The original and common understanding is that the murder is indeed illusory. Paul Allen has indeed disappeared or gone to London. The decoration of a new residence and the disappeared wreckage just show that everything about the murder is left in Bateman’s imagination. But the old woman’s strange behavior could not be explained.

Perhaps all this should be understood in this way: Paul was indeed killed by Bateman, and other murders did happen. His family, who thought Paul was missing, saw so many corpses when they finally sorted out his room. The first reaction was that Paul was a serial killer. He hid the corpse in his room after committing many homicides (that’s why the film specifically explained that Bateman moved Paul’s corpse elsewhere), Then he tried to escape the punishment of the law by “missing”. As family members, they didn’t want to inform the police of Paul’s behavior, which was easy to get into trouble and make their Paul a suspect, so they decorated the apartment secretly and kept it secret. When Bateman visited, she immediately ran to see the room where the body was stored. Obviously, the old woman thought that Bateman might know the fact of Paul’s murder, so she told him to leave in a tone of warning and persuasion as if he had never been here.

This is my personal understanding: the intention of this scene in the film seems to be to show that the murder did exist. The illusionists seem to have made sense of the cause and effect, except for this scene. But the realists also have many loopholes. The whole film ended in an uncertain ending.

There is an argument between two screenwriters in the DVD egg: one thinks the case really exists and the other thinks the murder is conceived. Finally, in the film, we see the product of their mutual argument and compromise: both statements are reasonable, but they don’t make sense. In the last scene of the film, the door behind Bateman reads such a notice: “this is not an exit”, which is also the last sentence of the original novel. It seems to tell us implicitly that there is no way out to simply discuss whether murder is true or false, because even the author and the screenwriter don’t know the answer.

In fact, the theme of the film is by no means to discuss the authenticity of the murder. This chaos may help us better focus on the ideas the author wants to express.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here