would also like to clear things up

Rating: 10/10 (31 March 2008)

The ending of the movie is really left open to interpretation, but I do believe there is a specific interpretation that the film maker wanted the audience to receive. I do believe that Patrick Bateman was imagining all of his murders. The first clue is when he drags Paul Allen's body out of his apartment building, blood trails behind- BUT, when it goes to the next screen shot there is no trail of blood. Also, have you ever noticed that his three friends can never find dinner reservations? I think it's because they don't actually exist. I think a lot of the scenarios he creates are in his head, but his whole world (and the people in it ex: Jane or his fiancé) isn't imaginative. Also, Paul Allen and Patrick's lawyer confront him about Patrick Bateman being a "loser." When Paul Allen does it you don't think anything of it because he is a superior to Bateman, but when the lawyer does it, it's questionable. The detective is obviously fake because he has so much in common with Bateman that it is unreal; also, the detective is never particularly suspicious of Bateman despite his suspicious actions. If you caught the first scene with the detective, he whips out a CD that Bateman obviously would have liked and referred to the music just as Bateman would. Bateman says he doesn't listen to music because he is freaked out by the similarities.