Talk:American Psycho (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

References to use[edit]

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
  • Cunningham, Daniel Mudie (2009). "Patrick Bateman as 'Average White Male' in American Psycho". In Watson, Elwood (ed.). Pimps, Wimps, Studs, Thugs and Gentlemen: Essays on Media Images of Masculinity. McFarland. ISBN 0786443057.
  • King, Mike (2008). "Copycat, Seven, Natural Born Killers, and American Psycho". The American Cinema of Excess: Extremes of the National Mind on Film. McFarland. pp. 70–77. ISBN 0786439882.
  • King, Mike (2008). "American Psycho, Blue Velvet, and Basic Instinct". The American Cinema of Excess: Extremes of the National Mind on Film. McFarland. pp. 105–109. ISBN 0786439882.
  • King, Mike (2008). "The Conversation and American Psycho". The American Cinema of Excess: Extremes of the National Mind on Film. McFarland. pp. 178–179. ISBN 0786439882.
  • Mark Ebner (January 26, 2000). "Killer's Kicks". Salon.

Plot Summary[edit]

This article lacks a plot summary —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.195.119.37 (talk) 01:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

TRUE TRUE--203.81.232.168 23:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was just going to say that. Why doesn't this film have one? Most other films do. (Wikirocks2 (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Two years later, still no plot...--91.97.9.95 (talk) 05:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, for what appears to be a relatively well-known movie, it's surprising to see no summary anywhere in the article, and even more surprising that we have recognized this but something hasn't been done yet and probably get done for quite some time. QuidProQuo23 04:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thats surprising No Plot Summery for a really great movie. I Would make a plot summary but i havent seen the whole movie yet. STAT- Verse 02:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just watched it... I figured there was no plot summary here because you can't summarize what doesn't exist. It was just a collection of scenes put together. If someone can explain what was going on, though... please do. 128.253.185.166 (talk) 07:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

nice. good catch. You can also find a scene very similar in the movie A clockwork orange. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.241.162.17 (talk) 12:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adaptation From The Novel[edit]

In the book Bateman kills 'Paul Owen', where the film adaptation used an altered surname 'Paul Allen', played by Jared Leto. The text makes no mention of this.

Another evolution from the novel to film is the altered setting; the book happens to be set between April Fool's Day 1989 and 1991 [1], where alternatively the film adaptation actually concludes in 1987, with Ronald Reagan's 4th of March address to the American public over the Iran-Contra affair. This is clearly seen and heard on the TV in Harry's Bar of the final scene [2][3]. Suggest altering text to take account of this.


[1] Cite error: The opening <ref> tag is malformed or has a bad name (see the help page).| url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_psycho [2] Cite error: The opening <ref> tag is malformed or has a bad name (see the help page).| Final Scene from Film. From transcript| url=http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/a/amercan-psycho-script-transript-bale.html [3] Cite error: The opening <ref> tag is malformed or has a bad name (see the help page).| url=http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0144084/trivia

Christy/Christie[edit]

This name is spelled both ways in different parts of the articles. Does anyone know which is right? 69.129.193.162 16:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


In the book it is spelled Christie... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.197.63.215 (talk) 19:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Debate of Patrick Bateman's Reality[edit]

The section contains original research; claims should be verified or removed. If the section is to remain - and it is not entirely clear that it is encyclopedic (or of specific relevance to the film) - it should be rewritten as properly-referenced prose, rather than an overly-long laundry list of evidence (which detracts from the rest of the article). (220.240.19.215 (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I agree that the claims in this section should be verified or referenced, but I think that the question is highly relevant and worthy of critical thought. The movie can be interpreted in two different ways, either that Bateman killed those people or that it was all a fantasy. This ambiguity adds a significant level of depth to the movie. It can even be argued that this question is more important than the film's dark humor, violence or commentary on consumerism. Are Bateman's actions being ignored or is he simply delusional? The way you answer this question casts a different shadow on how you view the events of the film. Bottom line, this is an important topic for American Psycho. 204.97.104.30 (talk) 16:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't necessary to agree to the first part, verifiability is official Wikipedia policy :) The claims must be referenced and original research is not permitted.
Is the question relevant? I agree that it is. Is the question specifically relevant to the movie? I believe it is not. The section itself says: "The question of Bateman' reality is best understood by reading the novel, since the film adaptation abbreviates the novel and was not written by Ellis himself ... The movie leaves out important clues vital to understanding Bateman's anomaly." A proper examination of the theme belongs much more aptly in the novel's article.
Even if the film's article should have a section discussing the theme, that does not mean the current content of the section should be kept. The section should be written as prose, again with proper referencing and again without original research. The current lists are atrociously written, too long and do not address the question or inform the reader. (Hence why I did not propose moving the section to the novel's article.)
The section should be deleted until someone can write something in Wikipedia's style, addressing the theme directly and observing Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and no original research. Then it could be discussed whether that belongs in the novel's article, the film's article or both (not identically of course). But whatever the case, the poorly written section as it currently stands is not needed and should be deleted. (220.240.144.239 (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
The whole movie is allegorical and not meant to be taken litterally. It's theme is as much about governments and corporations as anything. We all know they get away with murder... we just choose to ignore it... It doesn't mean the murders aren't real. The whole film is tongue in cheek comedy... after all anyone who gets that into Huey Lewis has to be nuts... In the end Batemen wants to be taken seriously... and he isn't.... That is the irony of the piece. So are the murders in his mind or are they real? It doesn't matter, because ultimately no one cares... and that is the tragedy of Bateman. - Jag7211 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.153.139.201 (talk) 22:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment, but it has nothing to do with The Debate of Patrick Bateman's Reality section of the article and whether it should be deleted, or how it can be improved. (220.240.129.85 (talk) 01:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The fact is that Bateman’s entire life as a serial killer is imagined. It was pure fantasy, or, perhaps more accurately, delusion. Bateman’s existence is so empty that he increasingly looks for meaning in the shallowest of pools around him – making the most money, having the best body, best toned skin, best suit, best business card, getting into the best restaurants and clubs, picking up the most attractive women, etc. When each new level of achievement or conquest fails to satisfy, Bateman turns to fantasies of violence to make his life seem more real and full of meaning. As he loses himself more and more in his psychotic reveries, everything about his life seems to make less sense. Eventually, he can’t tell the difference between his real life and his fantasy life, as is the case with most people who are truly insane. Some people refuse to believe this twist in the ending and excuse it away by claiming that the fact that Bateman is never caught and that no one believes his confession just reinforces the shallowness, self-absorption, and lack of morality that they all have. To be frank, this is bollocks and wishful thinking on the part of people who, for whatever reason, want Bateman to be a killer instead of a deluded shell of vapidity searching for meaning in an insane way. The real ending makes him, and the entire story around him, much more interesting. Anyone can be a killer, after all. Killing people is not the hard part and doesn’t make as much of a statement. If Bateman is really a killer, it makes the story a macabre fairy tale just like any other slasher flick – the only difference is the setting. But, the fact that Bateman can carry on a seemingly ‘normal’ (by the standards of his peers, anyway) yuppy life while diving deeper and deeper into pure psychotic delusion is the whole point and is how the ‘social commentary’ that every reviewer mentions is delivered. AE Logan (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ways how the police investigator, the landlady, and Bateman's lawyer act (the latter two insistingly, with an obvious undertone of threats) are indicative of the murders being real, but ignored and even actively covered up. Bateman's lawyer even pretty much tells him that he's deliberately giving him a false alibi both by claiming to the police to have seen one of his victims in London and by pretending Bateman himself would be somebody else. With that in mind, it also becomes relevant that Bateman's friends also give him false alibis of having been with him when they were not. Deliberately pretending people are somebody else, or unintentionally confusing them, is a big theme within the film that keeps happening all the time. Not only Bateman himself does it, and it happens not only between the investment bankers themselves or with Bateman's lawyer, but also when Bateman misquotes Ed Gein with a quote that's actually from Edmund Kemper. Basically, it's a world full of improper, false denials and alibis, of either active fraud or self-delusion, that keep many real murder cases from actually being solved and even lead to their being ignored altogether. --2003:EF:1700:B439:E973:7C5E:5D6A:FB10 (talk) 11:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretations[edit]

I haven't seen this film in years, but I think a third interpretation is missing. He is both a psychotic and a psychopath. There are killers who are have both syndromes. So maybe he does actually kill but the things that are indicative of breaks from reality like speakers talking to him are part of his psychosis. DivisionByZer0 (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My take is that he's becoming psychotic from the fact his acts are increasingly getting more and more monstrous so they're starting to traumatize even him and *STILL* people are ignoring it all. Those two things together, maybe coupled with the stress from the investigations that suddenly just disappear just when they should've actually caught him, drives him so psychotic that he's starting to have hallucinations, such as the thing with the cash machine. --2003:EF:1700:B439:E973:7C5E:5D6A:FB10 (talk) 11:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LeoDi and Harron[edit]

Director Mary Harron and actor Christian Bale were originally set to make the movie, but Leonardo DiCaprio expressed interest in playing the lead. Production company Lions Gate issued a press release that DiCaprio would star, after which Mary Harron walked off the project, and Oliver Stone subsequently expressed interest in directing the film. When both DiCaprio and Stone dropped the project, Harron and Bale returned to the movie."

I'm a bit confused here; it is implied (to me, anyway) that Harron walked off because of the DiCaprio announcement, but no further explanation is given. Could this be corrected/clarified/explained better?

137.82.118.113 (talk) 15:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Zerstoren[reply]

"If I Don't See You Before Easter..."[edit]

There is a short scene in American Psycho where Bateman is with who I believe is Samantha Mathis' charter Courtney Rawlinson after a night out. Bateman wakes up and finds himself on top of a stuffed black cat. A short dialog between Bateman and Rawlinson follows as Bateman dresses himself before leaving. Now, What i am wondering is if this scene is actually in the novel because I came across it in Bret Easton Ellis' first novel Less Than Zero where the main character Clay has the same exact scene and dialog word for word with his ex-girlfriend Blair except that instead of it being around Easter the scene is set just before Christmas. Is the AMpsycho scene reproduced in booth novels or is it just one of those great dialogs that Ellis is known for and placed into the AMpyscho movie to add something deeper to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NoWaxNowak (talk • contribs) 16:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

satirical (spoiler)[edit]

this film has one of the most satirical ends i've ever seen. perhaps it would deserve a mention in the first paragraph, as is the case in the novel it's based on? Twipley (talk) 01:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Synopsis?[edit]

Why is there no synopsis of this film? john k (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously - I haven't seen it, so I can't add one, but the article definitely needs one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.36.245 (talk) 08:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I find it a bit weird that a plot overview is entirely absent from the article. Part of me thinks it might have been deleted at some point, but I can't find where. gbrading ταlκ 13:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bateman or Davis[edit]

First of all there was never a "toruture" in the initial threesome. That part should be removed. Also when Bateman meets with the lawyer, the lawyer calls him Davis twice, and refers to Bateman as a geek, just like Paul did. This should have been mentioned in the summary. 99.6.4.126 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

The ending of that scene is rather brief, we see him get out his torturing equipment and tell the girls, "We're not done yet!", and then we cut to the two running out of his appartment door with money in hand, Chrissie looking like she's holding her nose shut as if it would be running (or she's having a serious nosebleed?), and with a look of pain on her face. The next time we see her, she says, "Last time, I had to immediately get emergency surgery afterwards!", as if she's referring to a routine thing that keeps increasingly getting out of hand every time. All of which is indicative that he closes his hooker orgy sessions with torture and mutilation, but usually not enough of it to kill them on the spot. --2003:EF:1700:B439:E973:7C5E:5D6A:FB10 (talk) 11:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Headlines[edit]

to use with this article--J.D. (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lawyer's Name[edit]

In both the book & the film the lawyer's first name is explicitly stated as Harold (IMBD.com lists Stephen Bogaert as the actor playing the character Harold Carnes). While it IS the case that Patrick uses the name 'Howard' in his phone confession near the end of the film, this is yet another instance of deliberate identity misdirection that is an undercurrent right throughout the film. Having previously made an appropriate edit to this article, I see someone who is oblivious to this fact has reverted it back to the incorrect 'Howard'. Once again I will correct this clear mistake, and expect what is factual to stay untouched this time round.

The "oblivious someone" was undoing what appeared to be arbitrary vandalism because you provided no explanation (until now) for your edit. Perhaps in the future you will use the edit summary field to explain what it is that you are doing. I think if you do, there's a better chance of "what is factual" staying "untouched". You should also sign your talk page posts using four tildes so the rest of us know who to thank for maintaining such high standards. Blake Burba (talk) 05:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some food for thought: maybe the oblivious someone (I make no assumption that because BB replied to my post, that BB therefore is the 'culprit') ought to pause next time before they automatically assume an unexplained edit is vandalism (esp. when it's clearly not 'obvious vandalism', ie. the lawyer's name being changed to, say, Adolf, or Mbuto - let's face it, Howard & Harold are pretty interchangeable. Any neutral observer would assume as much that there may actually be a basis for Howard being corrected as there was to think it was vandalism), and consider checking out the nature of the edit to see if it may in fact have merit (in this case, it would've taken all of 5-10 seconds to go to the wiki page for the book of this film to quickly learn that the lawyer's 1st name was indeed Harold, and so realise the edit had a factual basis, and had this simple act been done, so saved my having to spend the time I have in this discussion section). Where is it promoted on wiki that every edit MUST be accompanied by an explanation in the discussion page (when it comes to major edits, it's a desire/demand I could/can readily understand, but with exceedingly minor edits such as the one I proffered, why must '10 thousand words' and my time typing them out accompany such a quick correction)? I've made a few previous (exceedingly minor) edits before without spending any time elaborating on their basis on the discussion page, and they've withstood being reverted because of, amongst other things, assumptions of vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.79.96.4 (talk) 04:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find it difficult, if not impossible, to believe that the same someone who just churned out the sizeable paragraph above is incapable or unwilling to fill out an edit summary of a few words to preclude having to be so verbose. Happy editing. Blake Burba (talk) 06:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What am I saying? Of course I believe this person is incapable of a concise few words. Look at the size of that paragraph. Blake Burba (talk) 07:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Film Genre (comedy)[edit]

The article states the the film is predominantly a psychological thriller but also blends elements of horror, satire, and black comedy. I dispute this. It is clear that film is a satire from start to finish, exemplified by its comedic tag line killer looks, emphasis on the lives of the American upper classes and melodramatic performances. Ignoring the final reveal of psychological context in the film, the structure is similar to that of a comedic character study such as Borat. Right from the start the film dedicates whole scenes to examining the lifestyle and characteristics of its characters, with often little advancement of the plot, as would tend to be the full focus on a pure psychological thriller. Such scenes would be unimportant if it wasn't for the fact that the film attempts to 'ridicule, ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, and society itself, into improvement' - the definition of a satirical drama. To determine that the film is at heart a psychological thriller would be to suggest that its tone and content had not done full justice to the original novel, described in its own wikipedia article as a 'psychological thriller and satirical novel'. I will update the article to how i think it should read.

'American Psycho is a 2000 cult psychological thriller and satirical film directed by Mary Harron based on Bret Easton Ellis's novel of the same name. The film blends elements of horror, dama, thriller and black comedy in an indictment of yuppie culture.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theotheothelonious (talk • contribs) 15:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It’s clearly a black comedy throughout, with horror elements. “Black comedy horror” will suffice, why is Wikipedia so picky? AlienChex (talk) 07:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deliberate Ambiguity[edit]

TheOldJacobite obviously doesn't understand the concept of deliberate ambiguity as he keeps changing the analysis to make it seem like a straight-up story with no extra layers. I've reported him for repeatedly reverting it without adequate explanation, as well as his abrasive, arrogant refusal to accept anyone else's contribution to the page.2.28.175.64 (talk) 13:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The plot is not the place for analysis or commentary, it is the place for a straight recitation of the facts. If you have a source for this "deliberate ambiguity," the proper place for it would be in critical reception. But your opinion is irrelevant and should not be added to the article. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 19:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
+1 on that. It does not really belong under "plot", and it would need a proper source. Anything else is original research. Nymf talk to me 19:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TheOldJacobite - first of all, it isn't your place to tell me that my opinion is irrelevant. You've given me no reason to believe yours is any worthier than mine, none whatsoever.

Second, this isn't about MY opinion. It's established, known fact that it's deliberately ambiguous. It's actually noticeable from the analysis as it stands that it has ambiguity, hence the apartment suddenly being empty and the boss who's had dinner with Paul.

You continue to misrepresent what I'm trying to do through intellectually lazy, elitist deflective manoeuvres and abrasive rhetoric.2.28.174.162 (talk) 20:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Illusive Man (talk • contribs) [reply]

What you're trying to do is add subjective information with no sourcing to back it up. When it's being removed, it's being rightly removed—content should be sourced to a reliable secondary source, especially something so subjective as interpretation of something implied. Instead of gurning about it, find a source to back your opinion up, and if you can't, just drop it. Now you've already broken WP:3RR in warring over this, so back off and spend the time trying to be constructive for a change. Thanks. GRAPPLE X 20:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've found an interview with Bret Easton Ellis where he makes it clear it's ambiguous, although admittedly he's talking about the book and even says that he believes Mary Harron confused the issue by making it too literal then trying to make it interpretive again at the very end. But whatever, it's still evidence that he intended Patrick Bateman to be an unreliable narrator. I'll look for other sources to beef it up a bit as well although it took me a while to find that one so I won't hold my breath.2.28.174.162 (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you cited said source? Even if you have...you have just established he is "talking about the book" which perhaps has a place on the book page but not here unless he is directly referencing the film. Otherwise it is as other said editors have said is Original Research. MisterShiney ✉ 21:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the source is cited in the Plot section. And yes, he's talking about the film in that passage.2.28.174.162 (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, having reviewed MOS:FILM, commentary is not suitable in the plot section. MisterShiney ✉ 21:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the source to the Reception section as part of Easton Ellis's response to the film.2.28.174.162 (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a highly complex and ambigious film with many different possible explanations, but with all the possible explanations being so different and depending on the individual reviewer, the issue definitely belongs into the critical reception or analysis section, not inside the plot section. In the plot section, we may only say things are weird, unexplained, or don't make logical sense ("In spite of...he finds the apartment empty"), something like that, and then give the possible interpretations and explanations in the sections further down. --2003:EF:1700:B439:E973:7C5E:5D6A:FB10 (talk) 11:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apartment couture?[edit]

What does this line mean: "the lavish couture of his apartment." I know what haute couture is, it refers to expensive, custom-made clothes (usually evening wear) made by designers of leading fashion houses. But what does couture mean in terms of apartment decor? Is this a typo, and would anyone oppose it if I were to change it to something more suitable? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 15:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

Why does "Dorsia" redirect to here???[edit]

If Dorsia is a restaurant in the movie, it needs to be mentioned somewhere in the actual article. Otherwise the redirect should be removed. In a while I will do it myself if nobody objects. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 19:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dorsia is the city's most exclusive restaurant where everybody in the film wants to get a reservation for a table, but only few manage to do so. --2003:EF:1700:B439:E973:7C5E:5D6A:FB10 (talk) 11:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
uh oh looks like someone didn't get their reservations . Based47 (talk) 14:43, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree!! 2A00:23C5:6E3C:A401:7CD3:2C46:EB6B:D811 (talk) 12:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
is this an article written by AI? 2A00:23C5:6E3C:A401:7CD3:2C46:EB6B:D811 (talk) 12:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Genre[edit]

this film has been written as ' black comedy - psychological horror ' for a while until recently users have begun deleting and adding new genres without sources. Feel free to express your opinion below on what genres should be included as I feel removing either of the ' horror ' and ' black comedy ' genres is denying what the film is. The black comedy comes from its satirical style of which the original novel is. The black comedy also adds a lighter tone to the film after the long and gruesome slasher sequences which is of the horror genre. Regarding the horror genre I would also personally class it as psychological horror as Patricks mental state is used to shock and scare the audience however simply ' horror ' is fine by me. The Thriller genre is an appropriate genre as the film features a detective tracking Patrick and becoming an obstacle for Patrick which is a Thriller trait. In conclusion i feel the film should be listed as ' Black comedy , ( psychological ? )Horror and Thriller only. For sources on genre Rotten tomatoes categorises it as drama , horror , mystery & suspence in that order and Google bills it as horror , comedy , drama , thriller . Hotndead (talk) 21:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the genres remaining Black Comedy ,Horror and Thriller . Considering the majority of sites list this as Horror wether it be main or sub genre , I dont see how anyone can disagree or remove that genre without it being due to personal preference which is therefore invalid. Sarahlily86 (talk) 22:14, 17 July 2016 (UTC) — Sarahlily86 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Per WP:FILMLEAD only the primary genre should be listed in the lead. Most sites don't call it a horror and most sites don't call it a psychological thriller. If you look through the external links, Allmovie call it a comedy/thriller, IMDB a crime/drama, Boxoffice Mojo a comedy/thriller, Rotten Tomatoes calls it a Comedy/Drama/Horror/Mystery & Suspense, Metacritic calls it Drama/Thriller/Crime and American Film Institute a suspense drama (basically their terminology for thrillers). So as you can see nobody calls it a psychological thriller and hardly any reputable site considers it a horror film either. Of the six regular sources we use in film articles, five regard it as a thriller or suspense drama, three consider it a comedy, two call it a crime drama and only one major source considers it a horror (and lists that along with four other genres). The primary genre here is "thriller" and "comedy", and the secondary genres is "crime drama". Betty Logan (talk) 23:33, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mention calling it a psychological thriller. Why are the sites youve chosen more valid than mine ?Suspence Drama and Thriller are totally different which actually means only 3 of those sites regarded it as a Thriller. Simply listing this as a black comedy - thriller is ignoring the whole slasher film aspect where numerous times we see Patrick chasing women and killing them grousomely - how is that of the Thriller genre ? The Thriller aspect comes from the detective trying to target Patrick not Patrick brutally killing the women. A good example of a black comedy thriller is Fargo . Hotndead (talk) 07:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying it doesn't have horror elements, I am saying that horror is not a primary genre. You are cherry-picking sources that say what you want it to say. The fact is the WP:WEIGHT of sources do not support it is a horror film. The mainstream sources that we use in the vast majority of film articles do not support this assertion. There are more sources calling it a thriller or a comedy than a horror film. Betty Logan (talk) 12:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This film has A LOT of horror elements. More than a horror film like Psycho. And there are plenty of sources calling it a horror film. I'll check but I think even the director called it that. Maybe it isn't up to the level of gore you prefer, but remember that the Bela Lugosi Dracula is considered a horror movie, and for good reason. So is Friday the 13th which American Psycho has a lot in common with. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 22:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about whether I think it's a horror or not, or whether you think it has more horror than Psycho, it's about what sources predominantly classify it as. Sure, there are sources out there that call it a horror but the salient point here is that there are more sources that call it something else. WP:WEIGHT is the relevant policy here, and WP:FILMLEAD is the relevant guideline. Betty Logan (talk) 22:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think perhaps it should be noted as a "psychological horror-thriller black comedy". It's inclusive of the various genres mentioned here, albeit a bit lengthy (my two cents were partly inspired by The Silence of the Lambs' genre description). –Matthew - (talk) 21:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Silence of the Lambs' genre description is not that extensive, so it doesn't back up your preference. Betty did a good job of laying out what various sources have shown, and she is correct - WP:WEIGHT should be followed. Most sources do not call it a horror film, so that label should not be used in the lead. - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was curious what Fangoria said, and they call it "one of the definitive horror comedies of the 21st century". I'd probably just follow Fangoria's lead and call it a horror comedy, but there's nothing wrong with calling it a black comedy thriller. I don't want to get into a long off-topic discussion here, but darker thrillers often go through an initially-contentious drift in categorization to become reassessed as horror films. This is most prominent in the example of The Silence of the Lambs, which both The New York Times and Variety called a thriller in their contemporary reviews. This is a fascinating phenomenon, and it's probably documented in some cultural studies journal on JSTOR. Maybe some day I'll find enough sources to document it on Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fangoria will obviously lean towards labelling things horrors because that is how its readership falls. The question is about how generalized the label is; of the sources we normally use in the articles none of them call it a "psychological thriller/horror" and only one describes it as a "horror", so I don't think the weight of the sources really favor "horror". In truth there is very little consensus between the sources, but all of them (with the exception of IMDB which is not RS anyway) describe it as either a thriller or a comedy (with the AFI describing it as a "suspense drama" which is it in-house terminology for thrillers) which is why I think "comedy-thriller" captures the middle ground between the sources. Ultimately if we bring in "horror" why not a "crime drama" as well which some sources have down? Once you get past a couple of genres I think the description become less useful to readers. Betty Logan (talk) 17:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Although if still the genres are not decided, better delete the genre from the lede instead, as the above discussions states that the film is a horror or comedy or crime or drama. Until this dispute is not solved, delete the genres and discuss on talk page rather adding anything. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 15:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? 2A00:23C5:6E3C:A401:7CD3:2C46:EB6B:D811 (talk) 13:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of users agreed on Horror and there are various sources for black comedy so the current genre was fine considering it was left alone since July 2016 and reverted by various users if anybody changed it. That alone shows the consensus is Horror and Comedy which is also in favour of the majority vote here . Crime and Drama was mentioned by one user. Allyourfaultp11995 (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll be contradicting the "consensus" here, as the sources presented don't particularly support horror or black comedy more than say, thriller, possibly slasher, or just comedy. I would support a change to at least 'comedy-slasher', 'horror-comedy', or 'comedy-thriller', with 'satire' also worth considering. Other sources such as Empire, Cleveland Scene, and James Berardinelli seem to suggest these genres have weight. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 05:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(UNDENT) This is a case similar to Brazil: A film that is not only deliberately highly ambigious to its actual nature (dependent simply on whether the weird stuff is real or only imagined, as would also be the case with films such as The Shining and The Tenant), but also mixes a number of genres that nobody would probably guess they would even work in this mix on paper, and where the actual genre is highly layered, complex, and probably highly bizarre, original, and innovative. Especially the last 20 or 30 minutes even seem to borrow cleverly and heavily from the mood, atmosphere, mise-en-scene, and cinematography of the similarly surreally and nightmarishly escalating ending of Brazil, most of all the entire night-time nightmarish scene that unfolds between the cash machine sending a weird message to Bateman up until he has finished making his phone confession to his lawyer.

In Brazil's case, the externally-sourced consensus for a long time was to call it a dystopic satire in the lead. In any case, in both films (as Donkey Hot-day has also pointed out for this film here on this talkpage just above me) the satirical societal commentary is probably the strongest part in the mix, especially considering not only the overall hilarious black comedy way in which the actual deeds are being told (notably different in tone to the more thriller or horror-like lead-ins up to that point), maybe similarly to a film such as Tucker & Dale vs. Evil (even if in that film, all the gore happens unintentionally as accidents, but the bizarre, absurd atmosphere and humor of the kills are similar), and another film often with similar absurd humor (but with intentional kills) would be Cold Pursuit, but especially the satirical aspect behind the hardly rare interpretation that Bateman's kills actually happen but are either being ignored or even actively covered up.

So, bottom line, just like in the case of Brazil, I think the final say on the film's genre should contain the word satirical or satire. Something like satirical slasher thriller, or satirical psychological thriller with strong slasher and black-comedy elements, maybe.

Also, a final note: The long battles on its genre on the talkpage of Brazil have also established the fact that the number of sources given are irrelevant if many sources are calling it steampunk (a genre referencing the Long 19th Century and especially the Victorian age which emerged, in its final form, in literature and cinema somewhere between the 1950s-1970s), whereas the film's factual genre is dieselpunk aka decodence (a genre which references the interwar years and WWII and which emerged in its final form in the latter 1970s and especially the 1980s). The basic problem is that steampunk is a much more popular and well-known genre and still too few people know the label dieselpunk, and, as another confounding factor, both genres didn't gain actual labels or names until decades later, even though generally, the two genres themselves had been fully fleshed out and differentiated from each other for a long time. Thus, many people have started to just call something steampunk either as a sweeping synonym for "retro-futuristic" and "anarchonistic", or for anything that has dark, rusty metal in it, and that's just plain wrong, no matter how many sources call Brazil "steampunk" because of that. So, yeah...just because many sources are using a wrong label doesn't mean that WP has to follow suit and copy-paste a patently questionable claim (without sourceable critical commentary) that has been seriously called into question. --2003:EF:1700:B439:E973:7C5E:5D6A:FB10 (talk) 12:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More food for thought on the film's genre: Upon second viewing, I've noticed the film has not only similarities to Brazil, but also to Dario Argento's campish, utterly absurd and surreal horror giallos. Both American Psycho and Argento's films are often deliberately hilarious in how utterly absurd, unlikely, and just plain ludicrous and unbelievable it is what we're seeing. In both cases, it's like the black knight scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail blown up into feature length. --2003:EF:1709:2968:C9E0:18D5:61AE:A5 (talk) 23:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on American Psycho (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This Wiki page is written by Artificial Intelligence (AI) 2A00:23C5:6E3C:A401:7CD3:2C46:EB6B:D811 (talk) 13:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prod. information in lede[edit]

The argument that it isn't appropriate to discuss the production in the lede because it's discussed in the body of the article doesn't stand up. By definition, the lede is a summation of the article, meaning everything in the lede is repeated, but in more detail, in the article. Whether Pressman's purchase of the film rights is necessary in the lede is a separate discussion – I happen to think it's worth mentioning – but that it's simply repetition is not a valid argument. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 12:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He Never Shot Any Gas Tanks, Literally or Otherwise[edit]

In the Plot section, there's a part that says

"A police chase ensues but Bateman destroys the police cars by shooting their gas tanks"

The whole cat in the ATM and police chase was just in Bateman's mind. Even if the shootout with the police was supposed to be literal (which it isn't), Bateman's expression when the car explodes should tell you that it wasn't something that actually happened.

There are subtler indicators to Bateman's inner dialogue throughout the movie, but this one should be pretty straightforward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.16.207.136 (talk) 02:22, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it does happen, and his face tells us that at first he's surprised and impressed that he's unintentionally hit the gas tank and thus has managed to take out all the police officers at the scene, and then feels increasingly invincible, although he feels so guilty that he *WISHES* they would catch him. This weird combination of being invincible in the most absurd and incredible ways when he feels they *SHOULD* catch him, first with the police investigation against him that just vanishes into thin air just when they *SHOULD* have caught him, and then with him managing to make several police cars explode with a single gun is what causes his eventual meltdown and running amuck throughout the night. The first meltdown is due to the police investigator just giving up the case, which makes him hallucinate the weird message from the cash machine and triggers his murder spree, and then the fact he's so invincible he can kill all those many cops at once and still get off scott-free triggers his second meltdown, which is that he's calling his lawyer to confess everything. --2003:EF:1700:B439:E973:7C5E:5D6A:FB10 (talk) 12:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy the Silence is not in the movie.[edit]

July 21st 2019 - Anonymous Wikipedia user "2605:6000:E5C7:5000:E4B7:3ADC:2E5D:49C6" makes addition to Soundtrack segment, more specifically under "Other songs that appear in the film but not on the album". The addition is for "All I Ever Wanted" by Depeche Mode.

September 22nd 2019 - "All I Ever Wanted" gets corrected to it's actual title, "Enjoy the Silence", by anonymous Wikipedia user "199.168.78.11".

Let it be known that Enjoy the Silence doesn't actually make an appearance in the movie. It's not a song that appears in the credits. Plus, canonically, it wouldn't even make sense to have the song in the movie, as the movie takes place in 1987, and Enjoy the Silence did not release in any capacity until February 1990. For nearly 3 years a song that doesn't appear in the movie, has been credited to say that it does. I've taken the liberty of removing it from the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7E:32AC:4D00:C4EA:232A:2E4:6900 (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extra Kimball scene?[edit]

From the plot description:

Bateman again meets Kimball, who assures him that several witnesses saw Allen in London.

Is this a deleted scene? As far as I can tell, there are 3 scenes with Kimball:

1. First meeting at the office 2. Second meeting, where Kimball asks where Bateman was on the night of Paul Allen’s disappearance 3. Their lunch together

There’s also a deleted scene with the two of them in Tunnel. But I can’t find any scene like the one described, even in the uncut version. — cBuckley (Talk • Contribs) 22:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. No such dialogue exists in the release version of the film. No such cut scene is easily found on YouTube. No script or screenplay easily found online contains this exchange. The text was added to the article in this edit – https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Psycho_(film)&diff=prev&oldid=1030376572 – I will remove it now. WikiWikiHigh (talk) 02:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How was it a box office disappoint?[edit]

No source calls it this and $34 million is almost five times as high as its $7 million budget. Somarain (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I fixed that and someone changed it. I'll fix it again. They should discuss it here, with sources, as the idea it was a disappointment is a highly unusual claim. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is just bad Search Engine Optimisation (SEO) 2A00:23C5:6E3C:A401:7CD3:2C46:EB6B:D811 (talk) 13:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This sentence doesn't make sense. Who wrote this and what does it mean? 2A00:23C5:6E3C:A401:7CD3:2C46:EB6B:D811 (talk) 13:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Psycho_(film)&oldid=1221198010"