American Psycho Ending Explained | Insane Fan Theory 

The realtor scene was the one that got me. She looked like she knew what happened.

Great video... I have to return some videotapes.

I always thought that it was Paul Allen's family that had covered up the apartment murders because they thought it was Paul that had committed them.

It's a satire. Bear that in mind above everything else. The rich can get away with anything.

I can’t describe why but I almost find both the scenes w the realtor toward the end and the conversation with his lawyer to be more eerie than anything else that cane before it. Haunting

The man was clearly insane. Nobody would think the 80's Genesis albums are superior to their 70's music!

i like the theory that Patrick is actually Marcus Halberstram and he has created this Bateman character to empower himself. I believe he was some loner who imagined his friends and these murders but in truth was the guy at the office who has no friends and everybody talks about behind his back. even the book kind of gives that vibe. who knows though !

Also the foreshadowing of his fiancee at the beginning. 'Your father practically owns the company. You can do anything you want." That combined with the two interactions at the end all point to him doing it and speaks to the insane amount of privilege that is a theme of the film too

the movie should be titled "American Psychos"

The answer: it doesn't matter. P.S. but it totally happened

In the beginning of the film Evelyn states how he can pretty much do whatever he wants. And he replies by saying ‘ I don’t wanna talk about it.’ Also when he is near the end of voice message he’s leaving his lawyer he says, I don’t think I can get away with it this time. I totally agree with your theory

i dont think he committed the murders but those drawings were real

The director actually isn't saying that it wasn't in Bateman's head but merely it was not her intention for people to definitively read it that way. She says she wanted it to be open ended, meaning both options are equally plausible and no matter what the "truth" is the themes of the book and film are reinforced regardless. That is the beauty of this story

If you read the book it says at the beginning; "all ye who enter here, abandon all hope," which means he's actually in hell and at the end the sign on the door says "this is not an exit" meaning he cannot escape

our obsession to seek answer is another form of self-satisfaction which may lead to paranoia

One clue of many was his confession. He didn't even know how many people he killed for sure. Some could be in his mind and some could be real. He is crazy, hence American Psycho, lol. He's just not sure which one's were real murders. But you did a very good explanation of the lawyer scene, I have to watch this movie again. Love this movie. Awesome flick. :D

While I do agree that the movie is meant to be ambiguous in regards to what is real or imaginary, I don't believe for a second that Bateman got away with anything. His actions become so over the top to the end of the movie that if anybody were to let him get away with it for real, it would not just be ignorance. it would at best be incompetence or at worse a disturbing lack of self preservation.

That's it. I'm not going to look for any other theory. This is it. It's perfect. Now let me get my brains from the floor...

Actually after finishing the movie I thought it all happened, because how his lawyer acted. To me it looked like: because of the phone call the lawyer found out about the bodies that are in Paul Allens apartment and he arranged for it to be cleaned up; filled in the woman that there may be a guy coming over the place. To me it feels like it all came down to money. Cause he is a son of such a rich guy. They tried to create an alibi and all sorts of things to cover everything up. It did happen the next day after his phone call after all. The ONLY thing that makes it a fiction is: how is he not taken in by the police when he killed the dude at the reception in an office building. Usually those buildings have security cameras (especially of such high caliber that have such rich companies in there) and he managed to live through the day with no witnesses and no single camera catching him? Also how is he better at using the gun than policeman? What if he did some things for real, but some of them were hallucinated because he was going crazier. What if the ATM message was a hint: From here he is going natso hallucination mode. Which causes him to confess to his lawyer, about REAL murders.

I like your theory about the lawyer, I had the same feeling as I watched the scene for the first time. But the floor scene makes no sense. Allen did certainly not own a whole building in NY and just lived in one apartment, while every other one is empty. (What a waste of space and money and just this single apartment is for sale later not the whole building.) Nobody cared makes more sense for Ellis picture of the rich American society but still, its a huge building in the city which never sleeps, he runs around with a chain saw and managed to kill her and clean everything up and nobody noticed. Patrick also didn't kill everybody in the building, he has a hard time covering the disappearance of Allen Price, I think the police of New York would surveille the shit out of it after every single person disappeared there. On top of that we have the police scene and the cat scene and countless other scenes from the book which simply cannot be real.

1st off...good job...2nd..everything you said were my thoughts on this...and to add,Bret Easton Elis said that he was setting it in the "shallow 80's" and it was all real due to Patrick Bateman's character in the books shows up in RULES OF ATTRACTION(He's Sean's older brother and is referenced in the movie briefly) and is one of the story plots in THE INFORMANTS(his parts were removed from the film)...these events in the books go on to confirm that even after the events of both the book and film...he goes on to continue killing.

The trail of blood after Bateman leaves the apartments with Paul's body disappears after he exits the door. You can also clearly see the receptionist look at the trail of blood and not even react, as if it's not there. It's pretty obvious. To me the film is about his fantasies, it's also possible that certain murders happened and others didn't (I don't think the Paul Allen murder happened, I think it could have been a potential alter-ego of Patrick).

After watching this movie I am shocked that people interpreted the end lawyer scene as that the lawyer really didnt remember him. They made it pretty obvious that the lawyer was lying to save his butt, hes a lawyer.

The way people would never hear him when he would say insane things to them made me think it was in his head. However the real estate agent and cab driver parts in the book made me think otherwise.

Fair theory, but the police officer/detective didn't have an incentive to pardon Bateman of his crimes, he was intent on capturing him. He dissapeared by the end, and maybe that was Bateman's doing. I like this movie because a lot is left for the watcher to interpret and decide, it shows a level of respect towards the audience. That being said, a detective dissapearing surely wouldn't go unnoticed, so why would it be dropped right as Bateman was about to be captured? If you are going for the interpretation that everything happened, then there are a lot of things that start adding up against that theory. The mentioned explosion caused by a handgun or "feed me a stray cat", displayed by the ATM, for example.

Did you read the book? I read it some years ago. I am pretty sure there’s one of his nights out at a restaurant where he is very physically sick from being intoxicated and having a nervous breakdown and says at one point:” It really doesn’t matter, since I am just dreaming all of this”...?

I bet the ending is supposed to be ambiguous because we see everything through Patrick's eyes, and he doesn't even know what's real or not

Maybe he's really Davis, and he for some reason, thought he was Patrick.

I always wondered if Patrick Bateman also originally confused jared leto 'Paul Allen' just like everyone else confused him for someone else, and that the business card scene was shown from his perspective (where he was clearly more interested in the type/style of the card rather than the name on the card). Which also explains why at the end the lawyer REALLY did have dinner with paul Allen, and Bateman confessed to killing someone else who he thought was paul allen.

Pretty cool theory, but I DO NOT AGREE. It could be true, though, but clearly if you watch every "murder" scene or his confession, you know it's all in his head. 1. He couldn't have killed Paul since Kimball knew he was at dinner with other colleagues AND when Pat carried the overnight bag with "Paul's body", in one shot you can see blood on the floor, in second we don't see blood anymore. Maybe a fail at editing, maybe not. Still, if Pat was at dinner with other guys, who knows if he was EVER in Texarkana with Paul. 2. I don't believe that building, where he was with Christie and Elizabeth, was empty. Someone would definitely open the door if they heard screaming and a chainsaw. And hitting Christie with the chainsaw is probably impossible from that distance. All in his head? YES. 3. Seeing FEED ME A STRAY CAT sign, it is OBVIOUS everything after that - killing an old lady, cops, explosion by a gun... it was all clearly in his head. For me, where Pat was really close to actually kill someone, was when he invited Jean in his apartment. I think he was really holding that nail gun, trying to kill her, but couldn't. If he killed others easily, why couldn't he do it again? I think that was the first time he almost killed his first victim ever. Let's say that Mary Harron played around with "director's imagination" while bringing the book on small screens (which every director does no matter what), don't forget that Patrick Bateman is unreliable narrator. That's the main focus in the plot all the time.

Both the movie and the book deserves more recognition than it gets. The whole movie to me shows that all of us has a little Bateman. It just takes a little push. In so far as the story I do believe that Patrick did commit the murders. This fan theory proves it. The movie takes wack at your own sanity as well, leaving you confused, and can also make you question if anything that is happening right now at this moment, is even real, or if it’s just an interpretation of what you think is real 🤔...

Mind blown bro, I'll never watch this movie the same.

I think you need to explain one of the most confusing trilogy's of all time: The Matrix since you've done a pretty good job with this one.

I just finished watching it and I feel more confused than ever! Please explain this crazy movie to me!

When I read the book; I walked away thinking that Bateman did murder people (including Paul Allen), but that he was insane, possibly schizophrenic, and was clearly also confused and hallucinating. When I saw the film the first time; I assumed it was all his fantasy. However; l the second time I watched it a few years later I realised that it's a mix of fantasy and reality just like in the book. Obviously; he didn't really do that shooting spree at the end and the scene with the dinner date and Prostitute (for the second time) possibly wasn't entirely real either. But I think he definitely murdered Paul Allen and probably the homeless person and some women. I mistook the real estate agent scene when I first saw it. I thought it showed that it was all a fantasy. However; the second time it was clear to me that the owners of the apartment discovered the macabre interior and decided to cover it up to prevent financial loss and that the real estate agent knows the back story and realises that Bateman was there for activities related to the discovered murders. And it's clear to me that the Lawyer at the end suspects there's something to the murder confession and Allen's disappearance but just isn't interested in bothering with it.

Now that I look back, the apartment makes more sense to what you are saying of it all being real. It is not a coincidence that after he confesses to his lawyer, his apartment gets cleaned and covered up, if you think about it his lawyer might have been the one to call in the cleaning crew, after patricks dad owned a giant company and public image is all.

Would you be interested in a follow up video? I have some interesting thoughts to mull over if you're open for dialogue. Consider this. What If both sides (believing he did or did not) are particularly correct? What if Bateman, consumed in feeding his desire kills the homeless man. Feeling unsatisfied and jealous he kills Allen. After killing Allen all seems well until the detective questions him. He sweats very nervously and is too suspicious. His actions are not of a normal person and the detective knows this. This causes him to crack and enter a dangerous state of mind. I dont think he killed the hooker with the chain saw. I believe he fantasizes about this. I back that on the movie, the drawing and of his lack of bruising from a kick to the face. He may have killed all those people. OR, just Allen. And when going back to the apartment, Allen may have been left there dead. (He goes directly there after his death and only says he dumped the body.) When Bateman mentions Allen, the realtor denies it either due to the other people in the house or because she knows that Allen's death in the apartment wasnt reported in the media and she knows it him or she thinks hes a scum coming in from a unknown reason (reporter, nosey neighbor whatever the case may be.) This movie could be Batemans break down over guilt, the only emotion he doesn't show because as he says, he lacks emotions. But his conscience doesn't. He confesses to the lawyer who doesn't take him seriously because the majority is fake. And doesn't believe anything, EXCEPT for Allen which is why he makes the statenant that he saw Allen In London and then leaves the conversation there not to draw attention. Idk, Very sporadic but it was the best that I could do typing on a phone without rambling on.

Before I watched this video, my interpretation was that it was all in his head. I really strongly believed that because it was what made the most sense to me. But after watching your video, I’m questioning whether or not it really was all in his head. You made some very valid points and now I’m torn. I do love this theory though! Amazing job sir!

How about: it's a matter of interpretation and perspective and there are no clear, black and white conclusions that can be reached? Vagueness is the goal.

I dont think his dad owns the place.... lol just something he said

There are a few possibilities of what Bateman could be. First that he does do exactly what is shown and said and he is a serial killer psychopath etc. Second that he does none of what is shown and it is all in his head, and is very mental ill possibly schizophrenic. Third that he is somewhere in between, committing some murders but exaggerating the amount and the violence of his doings in his head. Whatever Bateman is the point is that the world he is living in fails to recognise him. Either The law fails to arrest such an evil man or everyone fails to recognise that he is seriously mentally ill. This to me is the point of the film. That the culture of that period is so self obsessed that they fail to recognise the problems in someone else (batemans) life

The movie is not the book. They’re 2 different interpretations. I wish people would stop trying to take it from it. Also what????? Dude the women doesn’t have fear or doubt in her eyes. She has an evil vibe & tells him to leave & HES scared/freaked out. But trying to sell the place? Lol come on. Paul didn’t kill everyone in the building. It was a surreal segment in his head symbolizing the descent into madness (descent down many flights of stairs as often is symbolized in movies where people are going down a long or notable flight of stairs into the psyche) & killing off that last little bit of goodness in him. The evil Side of him has taken over & the next day he has his shades on...he’s not himself at all anymore. But that’s the thing...the mask behind the mask

At first I thought it was all just in his head, but actually I think it’s more about the self absorbed individuals in the yuppie culture and that he can commit and confess to crimes and basically no one cares.

In the book it's explained that the pills he takes are Valium. A common prescribed drug for panic attacks

I dont think the director said she failed because it didn't look like he actually committed the murders. I think she said she failed because it didn't look ambiguous and showed that it was all in his head and she got that impression from the majority of the people who watched it and told her about it. I think if the majority of the people she talked to told her the complete opposite, she still would have failed in what she was trying to do. I think if you come away thinking it all happened then you are "wrong" because the ending was meant to convey a more questionable take. So really we're not supposed to know if he did it or not. It's like angrogonry in a sense. It is both, and it is neither. Or better yet it's like an Escher drawing where you can't tell the ceiling from the porch.

That's the thing about this movie. We don't know if it actually happened or not. He either killed all those people and nobody cared, or it was all in his head. For example in this scene 11:03 Patrick walks out dragging a heavy bag leaving a trail of blood behind him. And the guy at the door doesn't even blink. and when he walks out and puts the bag in the trunk of a cab, some of his friends show up, and again, doesn't at all react to it. All of these scenes could easily be explained by either of these two possibilities. It was all his imagination, or everyone were so egocentric that they simply didn't care.

Maybe Bateman is ACTUALLY Bruce Wayne/Batman and this film depicts a Nightmare he had after fighting The Joker..............Oh, WAIT!!!

Wait maybe I missed it but how did you explain the part where he shoots like 20 people in a row

Batemans father used his influence and power to cover for his son. The filmmakers would not have included the line about his father essentially owning the company if it did not serve a purpose. The the alibi of Paul Allen in London had already been constructed and circulated before the meeting with the Lawyer. It was first mentioned by the detective in Batman's office. This shows that others were already aware of Paul Allens death, and also aware of who did it. In this society, no one can remember who is who. In this society, no one cares if someone dies. The scene with the realtor is the key reinforcement in this theory. The acting is so brilliant, that you can basically read their minds, and see the internal motivators for each line, and each movement. Patrick Batemans insanity is the result of a lifetime of absurd privilege. He can get whatever he wants, when he wants. Can he even get away with murder? I guess so.

I tried to watch this video but I had to go return some video tapes

Here's my take. Bateman is the mentally derranged son of a rich business owner who must love him very much or feels guilty about not being in his life more - perhaps that's one of the sources of what made him insane in the first place. He gets his son on meds and puts him in the one environment that he can completely control, his own business. He's provided with a lifesytle that suits him and he's placed in a position where he really doesn't need to do much at all, or is given low level accounts. He's even assigned an entry level secretary. A professional at his level would interview and choose his own secretary, most likely one that is very attractive and very experienced. This was done because if she ever did find out anything about Patrick no one would believe her and she could quickly be handled. His father owns the building Patrick lives in as well and if anyone else does live in it they are obviously aware or have been warned about "Partrick's issues" and are handled just like everyone else in his company. I think there is a chance that he was the only one in that building. I couldn't imagine with his issues and habits he would tolerate any distrubance. He sees things, the ATM, shooting at the police, and is certainly a nut case, but I think all those murders are real and his father pays everyone to cover it up. That being said I don't think his father thought Patrick's issues would escalate the murder but once it did what was the father to do? Especailly if he felt guilt about possibly being a source of Patrick's issues? Bateman feels invisble, perhaps after growing up and being ignored by his father who was too busy building a company to care.

I think people like to think it is in his head a way to comfort themselves.

No idea how people think that in the movie it's all in his head. The lawyer he's talking to doesn't get his name right so why would you expect him to get Paul Allen's name right? The paint in the apartment with the woman who seems to know what he did. The only scene that is completely in his head is when he's walking out with the body in the bag and the blood disappears. The whole movie is about how self involved everybody is and how little they care about each other. Almost every single person in the film is the same and if we were listening to their inner voice, they would be very similar.

this is like priming except its like the opposite where instead of being informed of something before something happens its after it happens which sways your opinion because youre weak minded lol. when i first watched the movie i thought evelyn knew bateman was a serial killer because she said that he is inhuman. this "primed" me to believe that everyone knew that bateman was a serial killer. the way i interpereted the ending was "yuppie culture is full of serial killers and psychopaths", and that bateman's lawyer hired another yuppie/serial killer (the realtor) to clean up his mess, and that evelyn was another serial killer aswell. this explains the scenes with jean looking through bateman's notes/journal, which is supposed to be a normal person's perspective on yuppie culture.

But thats just Interpretation. The Movie says he is not a real Murder ( Lawyer Scene). A Lawyer must know his Clients espiacially when somebody call on the phone and say i killed somebody. And the Lawyer is aware of it he say its not funny anymore.Also Detective Kimbal dont reach any results and by the way he goes out with Bateman for Dinner. A Policeman dont go for Dinner with a Witness. And if you look what the Director said , it was my failure, she know that these points can be misunderstood or it shows she want to confuse.

I have not read the book bc people who have said they are not squeamish had trouble getting through the violent . Ellis has nothing on Stephen King bc all his more famous books have seriously disturbing and nauseating content with the running theme of depravity and people so shallow they have no empathy for others. Take less than zero a book written by Ellis as a 20 year old in college. He hated the movie bc he said it was nothing like his book except the character names. They were all supposed to be blondes from California and the cast was brunettes. He also had james spaders character a lot sicker in that he had kidnapped a young girl and had people come over rape hwr abs all watched her be killed and nobody cares . Another scene in the book they see a rotting corpse in the street and all stand there looking at it with zero empathy . His next novel the rules of attraction is about a little college where all the kids are also selfish and indulge in serious debauchery. The movie had a scene so sick I refused to watch it and the trailers for it I thought it was just another teen flick as those were popular taking actors from tv shows and putting them in the film james vanderbeek fred savage jessica biel. Than I heard it was so disturbing like the main girl a virgin who gets drunk at a party meets a film director who films her getting raped by a disgusting Townie who pukes on her . Pretty sick. Also the Nain male character is Patrick's little brother sean. The next stage was American pyysco the yuppie scene . Ellis basically took times of his life and wrote about them. From a freshman to a senior in a littke expensive liberal arts college to himself becoming part of the 80s money and coke yuppie thing. I guess he took the apathy of people he knew and wrote about it . He was a rich California kid that did to one if those extremely expensive liberal arts colleges in the east coast like a Emerson or holly cross or Hamilton college all east coast schools for extremely wealthy kids . I know the type as I went to a college private prep school in westchester ny and everyone had money and everyone applied and went to the richest of the richest liberal arts colleges where the degree wasn't worth the paper it's oriented on. People wrnt to the above I mentioned loyala college in North Maryland or tufts Fairfield nyu bates college on Maine etc The hallways of my school were decorated with these gorgeous campuses with beautiful tress and foliage almost like ud want to go there bc of how ideal they looked. They were also highly compete time to get into bc the richest of the rich were going there at 30 grand a pop in the late 90s which is equivalent to 50 grand a year. A lot of my friends got out of these schools with no jobs or became teachers which floored me a 30 grand education to go ve a teacher wgen u can do that at a state school. These kids were rich and selfish mean amd spoiled. When I think hiw I wanted to fit in and did go to one of those colleges where I'm still in debt. I can relate to Ellis writing about weathyr kids who lived to party.

for me part of the thing that makes me lean more towards it was in his head is honestly just the scene where he blows up one or two of the cop cars with a few bullets, it just makes it look so movie (or dream..) it just looked out of place with the rest of the movie

Don’t take these scenes as totally literate. These Wall Street types exist, they’re everywhere. The only thing that keeps them from murder is they’re afraid they’ll be caught.

I love how the realtor's clothes go to show the duel nature of her in the same way the film presents Batemen's duel nature by the right and left sides of his face.

Yeah I don't believe the director either. The whole movie was a masterful look at insanity and not knowing what the fuck is real or not. It is so clearly not completely real.

Fuckin A, I like you.......not in a gay way. Ay, I left this comment on here so I can watch the rest later, respond peez

It's sad that you have to say spoiler alert for a movie that's over 10 years old like if you hadn't seen this movie by now you're doing life wrong

Another thing I found particularly interesting that I have not heard anyone talking about is the film sequence where Patrick just killed the police officers and is going to kill the receptionist. The hotels he goes to looks exactly alike. However in one he kills everyone whereas in the other he leaves them alive. Could this mark the difference between reality and what Patrick wishes or imagines he was doing? I'm not sure. Maybe I am misinterpreting it, but it is interesting.

I think everything except the chainsaw and the shootout with the police are real

The book makes it a point to make it hard to tell the difference between anybody in the story.

Great. Let's see Paul Allen's video

So, everything did happen, it's just that everybody is insane.

Maybe Norman Bateman and Patrick Bateman are cousins...

To be honest I wouldnt have open the damn door either if I heard a man chasing a woman with a chain saw and not because Idc but because Id be scared shitless

What medication was Patrick Bateman taking? it Doesn't say on the Bottle 😈

U know i really thought that the lawyer was really creating an alibi

fucking amazing video man! i thought it was all in his head and you've blew my mind.. you just gained a subscriber!🙂

The director is intentionally being misleadingly ambiguous

I get that the lawyer could be keeping patrick out of jail, but he confesses to evelyn as well, earlier also drawing the graphic image of the the chainsaw in the back of the woman. Is this just another case of self absorption? Cause I don't think so

Can't explain the realtor scene if it's all in his head.

thanks for adding arabic subtitle

genius interpretations about the paul allen one ...

You pretty much hit the nail on the head with my thoughts. The lawyer scene is what made me question it too.

I hate to rain on your parade but the ending with the lawyer was actually the lawyer explaining that he DID believe him, he does know and that they need to stop talking about it because he got away with it therefore it never happened. Geez guys learn to sociopath!

Feed me a stray cat

But I have a reservation at Dorsia

What about when he's dragging that body out and there's blood on the ground in the lobby and no ones notices

I think maybe most of it happened, but maybe the rampage scene at the end was in his head....very mysterious

Sorry to say, but you're wrong. Just like Patrick being soo confused, that even he almost believes the lawyer, you too are falling in love with your own theory to the point of being blind, that is very dangerous, it's like you've been defeated, like you've given up. There are about 20 occasions where people get names wrong, but you're going to assume that the lawyer is the only smart one? Lots of people take medication, not to mention, the medication is not labelled, so how can you assume that it's something serious? Also, why would you assume the lawyers knows everyone's medical conditions? It's a firm lawyer, meaning he is the lawyer for many many people, I doubt he know all these things. I actually know the truth, but I like watching people squirm.

Impressive, let’s see paul allen video

My question about the realtor and the selling of Allen’s apartment is.... how was she just up and selling his apartment without him? I don’t understand that part

Hey man, I absolutely loved this particular vid in comparison with all the others. You covered most of the big things and what I liked particulary is that you tried to find a certain answer to an ending which is not only ambiguous but can be interpreted in so many ways which was the goal of the producer. I know we can never be sure 100% but I like the idea of creating an opinion on which most people can agree on that's ofc created on much research and thought investment. Now I really hope you see this comment and answer it because I'm about to point out sth that NO ONE else seemed to notice EVER! I searched for it on the internet to see if some1 else might've noticed it but nothing Here it is: Patrick made contact with his lawyer twice in the movie. First time over the phone from his office and the second time in that bar/restaurant in the end. However... those two times he contacted him, he called him differently. I think over the phone he called him "Howard" and in the bar he called him "Harold". This was kind of insane to me because throuhout the film other characters kept confusing people and misnaming them but this was the first time PATRICK was the one who misnamed someone. It doesn't imply much but since you've given this a lot of thought, what do you think this could mean for a movie as a whole.

I think his laywer fixed his shit!

Based Gigachad Paddy

Let see Paul Allens ending

I got chills. thank you for giving me some closure.

Spot on. LIsten, you'll excuse me, I have a lunch meeting with Cliff Huxtable at the Four Seasons in 20 minutes.

Love your videos! Keep em coming...

Great great video

Great video and take!!!

fusionzgamer

He’s like me...

speculation

New Shotana Studios video + American Psycho Theory = Me happy. Plus this was an interesting video and a great theory. There's also another video I will link you to that gives another great theory in terms of the ending and how it wasn't in his head. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ByLEIKTjgtk.html

“Whatever”