a tale of two movies (at least)

Rating: Null/10 (19 April 2000)

(includes spoiler)
Let me start off by saying that I enjoyed the movie; it was an interesting, disturbing, and telling commentary on the uselessness of excessive consumerism and of fitting in for its own sake. However, the film did not live up to its potential. In my opinion, the storyline was muddled and seemed to be going in at least two different directions, and the ending resolved none of these possible plots.
Having said that, and having read the comments already posted, I'd like to say that the interpretation that most satisfies me is the following: I believe that Bateman never really killed anyone. As he got wrapped up in his neatly packaged but unsatisfied life, he began to fantasize about breaking out of the mold he had set for himself by taking his aggressive lifestyle to the extreme, in the form of brutally murdering those equally lifeless co-workers and women around him.
This would explain the wild scenes of murder that are shown on screen, culminating in the killing spree at the end. His imaginings become more and more outlandish as he sinks into further mental collapse. For example, Paul Allen was never killed - he actually did go to London and was seen by his lawyer (Bateman knew he was going there before he created the revenge scene in his head. Even the detective was imagined (it was his way of setting up someone to unsuccessfully catch him; and if he were real, how could he have known about the Huey Lewis song being so relevant?) In the end, he's compelled to try to bring his fantasies into the real world, but no one believes him, and you're left wondering how much deeper into psychosis will Bateman go.
Of course, I could be completely wrong, and he did kill 30 people and the movie was about how society could not recognize him for what he is (a regular guy who literally kills to get ahead), but the former interpretation is my opinion.