Talk:American Psycho (film)

message: This article lacks a plot summary —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.195.119.37 (talk) 01:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: TRUE TRUE--203.81.232.168 23:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: Two years later, still no plot...--91.97.9.95 (talk) 05:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Plot Summary 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Christy/Christie 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Interpretations 

message: 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)
thread_title:  LeoDi and Harron 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "If I Don't See You Before Easter..." 

message: 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)
thread_title:  satirical (spoiler) 

message: Why is there no synopsis of this film?  john k (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. AzureFury  (talk | contribs) 03:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Synopsis? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Bateman or Davis 

message: *Killer's kicks
*Bret Easton Ellis on American Psycho, Christian Bale, and His Problem with Women Directors
*The further trials and tribulations of American Psycho
*The method in my madness
*American Psycho: the story behind the film
*Digging Out the Humor in a Serial Killer's Tale
*At the Movies: The Path To a Psycho
*The Risky Territory Of American Psycho
*Psyched Out
:to use with this article--J.D. (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Headlines

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Lawyer's Name 

message: 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)
thread_title: Film Genre (comedy)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: +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)

text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Deliberate Ambiguity 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Apartment couture? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: uh oh looks like someone didn't get their reservations . Based47 (talk) 14:43, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

text: I agree!! 2A00:23C5:6E3C:A401:7CD3:2C46:EB6B:D811 (talk) 12:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: is this an article written by AI? 2A00:23C5:6E3C:A401:7CD3:2C46:EB6B:D811 (talk) 12:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does "Dorsia" redirect to here??? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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 Fangorias 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: What are you talking about? 2A00:23C5:6E3C:A401:7CD3:2C46:EB6B:D811 (talk) 13:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Genre  

message: 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0%2C%2C275891%2C00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100624060251/http://clatl.com/culturesurfing/archives/2010/06/19/1534716-bret-easton-ellis-talks-film-adaptations-at-scad to http://clatl.com/culturesurfing/archives/2010/06/19/1534716-bret-easton-ellis-talks-film-adaptations-at-scad
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100624060251/http://clatl.com/culturesurfing/archives/2010/06/19/1534716-bret-easton-ellis-talks-film-adaptations-at-scad to http://clatl.com/culturesurfing/archives/2010/06/19/1534716-bret-easton-ellis-talks-film-adaptations-at-scad
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This Wiki page is written by Artificial Intelligence (AI) 2A00:23C5:6E3C:A401:7CD3:2C46:EB6B:D811 (talk) 13:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Prod. information in lede 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  He Never Shot Any Gas Tanks, Literally or Otherwise 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Enjoy the Silence is not in the movie. 

message: From the plot description:
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Extra Kimball scene? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: This is just bad Search Engine Optimisation (SEO) 2A00:23C5:6E3C:A401:7CD3:2C46:EB6B:D811 (talk) 13:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  How was it a box office disappoint?