People really believe it was all in his head

>people really believe it was all in his head

It wasn't all in his head, but some obviously was, like pretty much his entire killing spree in the city.

why can't it be ambiguous

>people really believe the top kept spinning

dubbles

>hasn't read the book

I've read the book. It was real.

Was it all in his head too?

who knows

>>people who can read

luckily that was never a problem for op @ american public school!

I'M GIVIN' UP ON TRYIN'

Wow, way to completely misunderstand the point of the novel...

No everything actually happened. The author said clearly that all the murders actually took place.
Honestly in the book it's easier to understand. The problem with the movie is that it doesn't look like a lot of time passes between his rampage and the ending, when in the book there are some weeks of distance.

>real life sociopath hero worshiped a fictional sociopath who hero worshiped a real life sociopath (donald trump)

really made me think

But it was in his head. I thought it was obvious

>No everything actually happened.
So an ATM machine really asked him to feed it a cat? And he really caused a police vehicle to explode in a huge cloud of flame by shooting it once?

ON SELLING THINGS THAT YOU AIN'T BUYING

The Don is not a sociopath.

youre retarded
bateman is a snivelling twit in another novel, but suuuure.. he killed all thosr people and everyone else in the novels world just forgot about it and went back to seeing bateman as a wannabe nobody.. just like you.

Its like they didn't even pay attention to the beginning of the sequel.

The ATM message was clarly an allucination, but the killings were true.

I don't get if this is bait or not, but the whole point of the novel is that no one cares/realizes that he's a psycho even if he blatantly tells them he eats corpses.
Now go fuck yourself.

haha. you read coles notes.

public education must SUCK ASS.

...

>Sup Forumsfags don't even know the truth of the film with the actor they idolize
Huh

>Harron ultimately came to feel that she had gone too far with the hallucinatory approach. In an interview with Charlie Rose, she stated that she felt she had failed with the end of the film because she led audiences to believe the murders were only in his imagination, which was not what she wanted. Instead, she wanted ambiguity
>"One thing I think is a failure on my part is people keep coming out of the film thinking that its all a dream, and I never intended that. All I wanted was to be ambiguous in the way that the book was. I think it's a failure of mine in the final scene because I just got the emphasis wrong. I should have left it more open ended. It makes it look like it was all in his head, and as far as I'm concerned, it's not"

2/2

>Guinevere Turner agrees with Harron on this point: "It's ambiguous in the novel whether or not it's real, or how much of it is real, and we decided, right off the bat, first conversation about the book, that we hate movies, books, stories that ended and 'it was all a dream' or 'it was all in his head'. Like Boxing Helena, there's just a lot of stuff like that. [...] And so we really set out, and we failed, and we've acknowledged this to each other, we really set out to make it really clear that he was really killing these people, that this was really happening. What's funny is that I've had endless conversations with people who know that I wrote this script saying "So, me and my friends were arguing, cause I know it was all a dream", or "I know it really happened". And I always tell them, in our minds it really happened. What starts to happen as the movie progresses is that what you're seeing is what's going on in his head. So when he shoots a car and it explodes, even he for a second is like "Huh?" because even he is starting to believe that his perception of reality cannot be right. As he goes more crazy, what you actually see becomes more distorted and harder to figure out, but it's meant to be that he is really killing all these people, it's just that he's probably not as nicely dressed, it probably didn't go as smoothly as he is perceiving it to go, the hookers probably weren't as hot etc etc etc It's just Bateman's fantasy world. And I've turned to Mary many times and said "We've failed, we didn't write the script that we intended to write"

What did they mean by this?

>people think about this retarded circus freak-show after watching it

...

>So an ATM machine really asked him to feed it a cat? And he really caused a police vehicle to explode in a huge cloud of flame by shooting it once?

Did these things happen in the novel? How were they handled?

>accurate depiction of white men being overrated autistic sociopaths

I think the ATM thing happened. Don't really remember anything about it though.

The car blew up because he hit the gas tank.

The movie is intentionally shot to make it ambiguous, it wasn't a mistake.

See:

Nice bait mait

how the fuck could he have gotten away with the chainsaw hooker murder? the noise was crazy and there were pools of blood.

Didn't read lol

Because nobody cared.
For istance they completely ignore the murders in Allen's flat because they would drop its value.

The ending of the book and film were both, "did he or did he not" ambiguous. That's the whole fucking point. Anyone who claims either way with 100% certainty needs to put a gun in their mouth and remember that dinner starts at 7 so don't be late.

Or it didn't happen. It's a mYsTeRy.

It's ambiguous but the author said they happened.

did you read the director's comments? My memory on the book is hazy, but in the movie it's implied that he DID actually kill. Whether some were hallucinations or not is ambiguous.

I didn't read the novel, but film director did say she fucked up with relying too much on hallucinations which made the crowd believe it was all just a dream, which wasn't her intent.