Bodom (2016) and the evolution of the Slasher genre

DISCLAIMER: This review contains spoilers for the film and relies on the reader being somewhat familiar with the horror genre.

Bodom (Taneli Mustonen, 2016) is a Finnish horror film inspired by the 1960 murders at the Bodom lake in southern Finland. The first thing to note is that the film is not a fictionalized account of the murders, but instead a story that takes place 50 years later with connections to the murders. Today, I would like to review the film and discuss how the plot mirrors the evolution of the slasher sub-genre.

For those unfamiliar with the murders, here's a quick recap. On June 4 1960, four teenagers, two boys and two girls, went camping at Lake Bodom. In the early hours of June 5, three of them were brutally murdered and the survivor, Nils Willhelm Gustavsson, injured.While there were several suspects, including Gustavsson who was charged with and aquitted of the murders in 2004 and 2005, the case remains unsolved.

 The film is about four teenagers: the nerdy Atte (Santeri Helinheimo Mäntylä), the jocky Elias (Mikael Gabriel), the tomboyish Nora (Mimosa Willamo), and the timid Ida-Maria (Nelly Hirst-Gee). Atte has a theory about the 1960 murders, that they were committed by a murderous stranger, and has convinced Elias to help him test it. Under the guise of going to a party at a summer cottage, they trick the girls into joining them. Atte believes that if they recreate the scenario in which the murders happened, they may be able to get the killer to show himself. And, predictably, people start disappearing and dying.

Since my analysis requires discussion of the entire plot, from now on, there will be spoilers. It turns out that Nora and Ida-Maria were well aware that Atte and Elias weren't taking them to a party. They decided to take the opportunity to kill them as revenge for Atte and Elias allegedly taking and spreading nude pictures of Ida-Maria at a party. Before he dies, Atte reveals to Ida-Maria that it was actually Nora who took and spread the pictures. On their drive back, after disposing of the bodies, Ida-Maria confronts Nora who confesses that she is in love with Ida-Maria and did it to bring them closer together. As they argue, they crash their car and are towed by a mysterious man, the supposed original killer. In the end, Nora is killed and Ida-Maria survives, traumatized and catatonic.

As the original murders were already a typical slasher story, it is no surprise that the filmmakers decided to go that route with the film. However, in my opinion, the film is not simply a slasher film; it represents thirty years of genre evolution. Let me break this down:

The film starts out as a typical 1980s slasher film. A group of teenagers goes to a secluded location to party. There is drinking, weed-smoking, skinny-dipping, and, of course, sex. There is also a legend about a killer. Suddenly, people start disappearing and the unseen killer gets to work. Together with the lakeside location and the past murders, it is hard not to draw paralells to Friday the 13th (Sean Cunningham, 1980), one of the most influential slasher films ever made.

With the first twist, that Nora and Ida-Maria are the murderers, the genre moves towards the post-Scream (Wes Craven, 1996) slasher genre - where meta is the law, tropes are analysed, and the emphasis is on black comedy rather than horror. While Bodom is dark throughout, we get some temporary refuge as Nora and Ida-Maria bicker and experience difficulties trying to dispose of the bodies.

After the car crash, the film turns to the 21st century equivalent of the slasher genre: torture porn. While there are contemporary slasher films, I think the torture porn genre, where the horror comes from the suffering of the victims, has taken the place of the slasher genre in contemporary horror cinema. Let me explain. There are plenty of similarities between the two genres. Firstly, like slashers, torture porn films often feature attractive young people without much character development, except for the protagonist, whose development tends to follow the path of the "final girl" character, who is strongly associated with the slasher genre. The largely disposable characters are also killed off one by one, often without anyone discovering the bodies until just before they are killed themselves. Secondly, the main appeal of torture porn films to genre fans is the graphic and elaborate ways the filmmakers kill their characters. Thirdly, torture porn films are often set in secluded locations, where the characters have nowhere to run. Fourthly, like in the '80s, when slaher films were the horror standard, torture porn was the standard for most of the 21st century. Finally, torture porn films often get an unnecessary number of sequels, for example: seven Saw films (2004-2010), with a new film to be released later this year; three Hostel films (2005-2011); and six Wrong Turn films (2003-2014), with a new film scheduled for next year.

At the end of Bodom, the killer is revealed to be a dark, hillbilly-looking figure who kills the injured Nora slowly, making Ida-Maria watch. While this torturous murder happens off-screen, everything else about the ending is filmed like a torture porn film. The angles, the colors, the close-ups, all more reminiscent of torture porn films than slasher films.

I don't know whether this progression through the history of the slasher genre was intentional, but the film definitely feels quite derivative (like most slasher films). Any horror fan will recognize how Mustonen attempts to recreate the iconic camera movement from Sam Raimi's classic horror film The Evil Dead (1981).

Overall, I feel a bit torn regarding the film. The soundtrack is good and the forest looks dark and threatening most of the time. There are, however, some scenes where the artificial lighting is really obvious, for example, when the "moonlight" is too bright and focused. The film is set in 2010, but it doesn't look like it. An early dinner scene with Ida-Maria's upper-class family looks like it could take place in the '60s, while most other non-forest sets, props, and locations give off a certain '90s vibe. I'm not sure whether this is an intentional choice by the filmmakers, to give the film a weird anachronistic feel, or if they simply didn't care enough to keep the film consistent. The first plot twist is unexpected, but does not make too much sense, and the second one is obvious. The acting is decent on average, ranging from terrible to almost great. It is not a great film by any standard, but it is possible to enjoy it if you are a slasher fan.

Hot Off The Presses: Deadpool (2016) Review

So, I just got back from the theatre. While I prefer to do more in-depth reviews and reflect on a film for some time before reviewing it, I thought it would be fun to share my initial thoughts on this particular film. Why? Well, this is a film that demands to be talked about. Not because it's ground-breaking, which it isn't, but because it is, in my opinion, extremely well-made. And fun. It's really fun. Because I sincerely think you should see it, this review will be spoiler-free.

Deadpool (Tim Miller, 2016) is a black comedy-superhero-action film about Wade Wilson (Ryan Reynolds), a former special ops operative, now a thug for hire, who is subjected to horrible experiments, giving him superpowers but deforming him in the process. He becomes the masked vigilante Deadpool and embarks on a quest for revenge and to get his girl back.

As you can see from the trailer, there is more to this film than the basic story. The film is based on the Marvel Comics character of the same name and is set in the same universe as the X-Men film series. While I haven't read any Deadpool comics myself, I do have an idea of who the character is. Known as the "Merc with a mouth", he is an insane, witty antihero mercenary with a tendency to break the fourth wall. In other words, he is aware that he is a comic book character.

How does this character then translate into film? I'm going to break this review down into three parts, each focusing on how the film works as comedy, superhero and action film separately, before finishing with some concluding thoughts.

Comedy

You will laugh. The film is constantly throwing jokes, of varying quality, at you and you will laugh throughout most of it. Some jokes are vulgar, some are childish, some will be completely lost on you if you aren't up to date on pop culture trivia. Some are clever and set up and executed extremely well. These, along with how much fun Ryan Reynolds seems to have portraying the character, will help you cope with jokes of lesser quality. If you see the film with subtitles, you'll also laugh at the feeble attempts of the translators to interpret Deadpool's inventive insults to a non-english speaking audience. However, one thing that bothered me a bit is that the film is riddled with pop culture references. Some, especially those related to other superhero films, are brilliant, but a lot of them just makes you think of Family Guy (1999-).

Anyone familiar with Ryan Reynolds body of work knows that he is a great comedic actor, which is incredibly important in this film. Deadpool is not only the film's protagonist and narrator, he is the focus of nearly every scene. And Reynolds definitely does a good job. He is, however, not the only funny actor in the film. Morena Baccarin, of Firefly (2002) fame, who plays the love interest Vanessa and T. J. Miller, who plays Deadpool's best friend Weasel, both get funny lines and scenes. However, they do come up short compared to Reynolds.

Superhero film

Is Deadpool even a superhero film? Deadpool is an antihero, who in the film explicitly rejects the superhero label. He also doesn't save the world, as is typically the case in superhero films. He does however have a villain to defeat and an underdeveloped love interest to save. He also seems to be aware that he is in a superhero film. This type of fourth wall-breaking self-awareness is, as far as I understand, very typical of his comic book counterpart and, as mentioned above, it does open up a lot of comedic possibilities. In one scene, he visits Charles Xavier's School for Gifted Youngsters and comments on that it is almost empty because the producers couldn't afford to have more than two X-Men in the film. He also makes fun of other superhero films, particularly X-Men Origins: Wolverine (Gavin Hood, 2009), where Reynolds portrayed a much-hated version of Deadpool.

Is Deadpool then a subversion or a parody of the superhero film genre? I wouldn't go that far. To call it a subversion would be to ignore how much it borrows from other superhero films in terms of plot structure and scenes. There is, for example, a scene where a deformed pre-Deadpool Wade Wilson walks down the street with a hoodie, trying to hide his deformed face, reminiscent of a scene with Ben Grimm/The Thing (Michael Chiklis) from Fantastic Four (Tim Story, 2005). To call it a parody would be insulting. The best comparison I can make is to Edgar Wright's "Cornetto trilogy" - Shaun of the Dead (2004), Hot Fuzz (2007) and The World's End (2013) - which are not really parodies of zombie, action and science fiction films, but are comedies set in those kinds of genre film universes. This is probably the best way to view Deadpool.

Action

Why do we watch action films? To get excited, get our blood pumping and just say "whoa" at how magnificent fights, car chases, and destruction of property can be. And Deadpool delivers. Its action scenes are well-made, albeit not particularly innovative, and the fight choreography is brilliant. Deadpool fight with guns, swords and martial arts and does some very impressive jumps and flips.

There is, however, another important part of any action film that is arguably missing in Deadpool: the sense of danger. This is for a number of reasons. Firstly, Deadpool's skills and superpowers make him almost indestructible and we never really fear for his life. Contrary to this, one could argue that the film still has high stakes. Deadpool has to save his love interest and defeat the villain, who is a very threatening character. Ed Skrein gives a quite scary performance when his character is the one in control of the situation.

Secondly, the film is sometimes a bit too self-aware and breaks the cinematic illusion, which reminds us that we are indeed watching a film. Some action scenes even stop for a second for Deadpool to deliver a one-liner. This was something that I was worried about early in the film - how can we empathise with a character that doesn't appear to take anything seriously? While this was a bit of problem throughout the film, there are scenes that show us that there is a real person behind the red mask and the jokes.

Concluding thoughts

Deadpool is, despite the problems mentioned above, a really good film. It somehow manages to be both dark and light-hearted at the same time - don't ask me how. If you're a fan of superhero films, you should go see it now.

American Psycho 2 (2002) and Why It Isn't So Bad

As I have mentioned before, American Psycho (Mary Harron, 2000) is one of my favorite films. It is smart, complex, beautiful and very much open to analysis and interpretation. Today's film is not.

American Psycho 2: All American Girl (Morgan J. Freeman, 2002) is a pseudo-sequel to the 2000 psychological thriller and has almost nothing to do with it. It is almost universally hated and has a Rotten Tomatoes score of 11%. Today, I will try to figure out why it is so hated and explain why I actually enjoy the film and has seen it three times.

The film is about Rachel Newman (Mila Kunis), who anonymously killed Patrick Bateman (unfortunately not portrayed by Christian Bale) when she was twelve years old. Now a freshman criminology student, she is dead set on getting to be the next T.A. for professor Robert Starkman (William Shatner), as most of his previous T.A:s have become FBI agents. She is obsessed with Starkman and kills her competitors for the position. Meanwhile, her psychiatrist Dr. Eric Daniels (Geraint Wyn Davies) becomes suspicious of her as he recognizes sociopathic and delusional traits in her.

A big part of the criticism aimed at the film is how little relation it has to American Psycho. Bateman's part in the story is very minor and they could have easily traded him in for any other serial killer without changing the plot. In fact, the original script for the film did not include Bateman as a character or plot point. Lions Gate Films, the production company, simply wanted to cash in on the critical and commercial success of the 2000 film. Therefore, I think the film would have been received more positively if they had stuck to the original script.

Before moving on to reviewing the film as a stand-alone product, I would like to discuss the ways in which American Psycho 2 suffers when compared to American Psycho. The 2000 film is very tightly linked to the 1980s and works as a critique of the very superficial aspects of the decade and a sequel could be expected to e.g. critique the nihilism of the 1990s in a similar way. American Psycho 2 could unfortunately be set in any time period after cars became commonplace. American Psycho is also very beautiful to look at. It is polished and very memorable because of the aesthetics alone. American Psycho 2, on the other hand, looks like any typical low-budget college slasher film and the set design adds nothing to the atmosphere of the film.

I have found it difficult to satisfyingly place the film in any particular genre. It is not scary enough to be a horror film and not suspenseful enough to be a thriller. It doesn't have enough gore to be a proper slasher and the jokes are not emphasized enough for a black comedy. It works as a strange blend of multiple genres and there is a noticeable shift after the first act. The first act sets up the film as a murder mystery, with one of Rachel's competitors as a suspect, but the red herring is revealed when she kills him early on. The rest of the film works like a female stalker film, but from the stalker's perspective. Normally in such a film the protagonist is the victim and not the stalker. This could be viewed as similar to American Psycho, where the reprehensible murderer is the protagonist. The audience is confused as to who they should root for and American Psycho 2 offers a sympathetic foil for Rachel in Dr. Daniels.

The weakest part of the film is undoubtedly the first act. Rachel's fellow college students are all cliched characters, portrayed by bad actors, and even Kunis doesn't give a particularly good performance. Luckily, it is fairly short and after a few murders the film focuses more on what works really well: the trinity of Rachel, Starkman and Dr. Daniels. Kunis shines as the manipulative and delusional Rachel in scenes with Shatner and Davies, surprisingly without channeling her Jackie-character from That '70s Show (1998-2006). The dark humor also becomes better when the audience no longer has to be lead to think that Rachel is innocent.

This is why I thoroughly enjoy the film. If you can look past the very misleading title and the weak first act, you'll probably like it as well.

American Mary (2012): Rape and more Body Horror

I was not originally planning to discuss body horror further, at least not this soon after my review of Contracted (Eric England, 2013). Netflix had other plans. While looking for suggestions, I found another body horror film, also dealing with rape and the destructive and corrupting consequences of rape, but in a different way. For this review, I will discuss the plot in greater detail, so you may want to watch the film before reading any further.

American Mary (Jane Soska & Sylvia Soska, 2012) is about Mary (Katharine Isabelle), a medical student whose financial troubles and excellent surgical skills result in her doing extreme body modification procedures. One notable client is Ruby (Paula Lindberg), a woman who wants to become a doll and asks Mary to remove her nipples and external genitalia. After she is drugged and raped by one of her teachers (David Lovgren), Mary drops out of medical school and starts doing body modifications full time. She also kidnaps her rapist and uses him "for practice", horribly disfiguring him. Her luxurious new life is threatened when an agent starts investigating his disappearance.

While Contracted attemps to show how rape affects the everyday life of the victim, American Mary focuses on how the victim deals with the consequences. When Mary is raped, she loses control over her body and she attempts to regain control by punishing her rapist and stripping him of control by stripping him of various body parts. She also helps others keep control over their bodies by modifying them according to their requests. When Mary asks Ruby (a pre-rape client) why she would want the requested procedure, she explains that dolls cannot be sexually objectified because they lack nipples and genitalia. Ruby wants to make her body her own, and not someone else's object. This feminist line of thought is continued later in the film when Ruby's husband beats her and wants revenge on Mary for taking away his sexual object.

The rape also changes Mary's moral outlook. She enjoys the sadistic punishment she continually inflicts on her rapist, which makes her increasingly less sympathetic to the audience. Even though we know that he is a serial rapist and has witnessed his brutal rape of Mary, the punishment cannot be justified because it is not redemtive for him, rather corruptive for her. Mary becomes a rapist by taking away his control over his body. Let's compare her revenge rape to that of Lisbeth Salander (Noomi Rapace) from The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo (Niels Arden Oplev, 2009). Lisbeth punishes her legal guardian Bjurman (Peter Andersson) for raping her by tattooing "I am a sadist pig and a rapist" on his chest and anally raping him with a dildo. She also blackmails him with a recording of her rape and demands that he leaves her alone. Lisbeth punishes by raping him back, branding him as a rapist to protect other women and releasing herself from his power, enabling her to move on with her life. Mary, on the other hand, does not move on and keeps her rapist as a pet for her to occasionally torture. Lisbeth allows Bjurman to live, with restrictions suitable for a violent sex offender, and checks up on him to make sure he behaves. He is basically on parole. Lisbeth's revenge is justified in motive and in method, while Mary's simply makes her worse. This is why Lisbeth's character is far more sympathetic than Mary's. One could of course argue that Mary's revenge is more satisfying as a fantasy. It is an expression of all her hate towards him and therefore does not have to be constructive, like Lisbeth's.

I have to mention that American Mary has a lot of unnecessary "male gaze" for a film about rape. As you can see from the trailer, Mary herself is often sexualized by the camera. There is, however, often a male character objectifying her in such scenes, allowing the audience to distance themselves from the shot. The rape scene is also decently done. It keeps focus on Mary's and her rapist's faces, alternating between her agony and his hateful lust.

The directors, known as the "Soska Sisters", are big fans of modern horror films and it definitely shows. Therefore I can only recommend this film to horror hound who aren't afraid of uncomfortable gore. Luckily, I am one of those and I really enjoyed it. Watch at your own risk!

The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993) and Cultural Studies

It has been a long time since my last review, but I haven't had the time. However, I thought I should at least do one Christmas-themed review in December and which film would be better to review than my all-time favorite Christmas movie?

The Nightmare Before Christmas (Henry Selick, 1993) is a stop-motion animated musical. Based on an idea by Tim Burton, whose name appeared so often in the marketing people still think he directed it, the film combines elements from both Halloween and Christmas, resulting in a child-friendly and slightly morbid look at the holiday season. In this review, I will argue that the film highlights one of the main problems of cultural studies: whether or not it is possible to describe or replicate another culture within the language of one's own.

The film is set in a world where every holiday has its own world and we begin in Halloween Town, where Jack Skellington (voiced by Chris Sarandon, singing voice by composer Danny Elfman), "The Pumpkin King", has grown tired of doing the same thing every year. He leaves town during the celebrations and accidentally ends up in Christmas Town. He is fascinated by this strange new holiday and returns to Halloween Town, trying to explain Christmas to the other residents. While they are unable to grasp the concept, Jack still wants to celebrate Christmas this year and so the entire town gets to work. And, of course, there is a love interest and a villain and Santa Claus (in Halloween Town called "Sandy Claws") gets kidnapped.

I will not discuss the plot further, but I will briefly discuss the love interest Sally (voiced by Catherine O'Hara). Sally is a Frankenstein's monster-like doll, who frequently drugs her creator because she is restless and curious and wants to see the world outside the lab. She is the one who pursues Jack, who barely notices her because of his obsession with Christmas, but not in an aggressive or comedic way. It is clear that she is concerned about him and she seems to be the only sane and clever person in Halloween Town. She is an interesting character, but her and Jack's romance does seem a bit forced. They could have made her his sister without having to change too much.

Back to the original topic: what does the film say about cultural studies? Firstly, when Jack attempts to explain Christmas to the other residents of Halloween Town, they simply do not get the point. They are stuck within their own language and culture, which results in them asking confused questions like whether there still is a foot inside a Christmas stocking. When they try to make their own Christmas presents, to be given to people who celebrate Christmas, they make gifts like a murderous doll or a severed head, things they would consider proper gifts. Their actual language is also different from the language of Christmas Town and the real world. They describe a very successful Halloween celebration as "our most horrible yet" and, because of this usage, they do not understand that their version of Christmas has failed when it is referred to as "horrible".

Secondly, while Jack is obviously more knowledgeable about Christmas, he still does not understand. He attempts to understand the wonderful new holiday he encountered by reading books, for example A Christmas Carol, and by performing scientific experiments on toys and Christmas decorations (he even dissects on a teddy bear). Finally, he decides to stop trying to figure out Christmas and simply make his own.

There are two ways of viewing this "horrible" version of Christmas. One could say that it should not be called Christmas, because of their cultural ignorance and how the people who normally celebrate Christmas react to it. It could even be compared with the Satanic "Black Mass", a perversion of the Catholic Mass. However, one could also argue that they are simply doing their own thing and are actually enjoying it themselves. They are not trying to ruin Christmas; they just wants to be apart of it. Their fault is not malice, but ambition and thoughtlessness. In a way, the film does not give a definitive answer to the question about culture and language, but it does not have to. In the humanities, we rarely want those anyway. It is more meaningful to present different possibilities to highlight a question, rather than to provide a simple answer.

I love this film. The story is interesting, the characters are great, the animation is amazing and the music is spectacular. All songs are written by Danny Elfman, mostly known for his work on Tim Burton films like Batman (1989) and for the theme song from The Simpsons (1989-). On the whole, the film is very memorable and has some great re-watch value. Personally, I watch it every Christmas!

Robin's Favorites: American Psycho (2000)

This review will be more analytical than my review of Ed Wood (Tim Burton, 1994). Therefore, I will have to discuss the plot in greater detail. Naturally, this means that if you haven't yet seen the film, I suggest you watch it before reading any further. Much of what I am about to discuss have already been discussed by others, but I hope I have something new to contribute.

American Psycho (Mary Harron, 2000) is a thriller with a large chunk of black comedy. The film is set in the 80s and is narrated by protagonist Patrick Bateman (Christian Bale), a Wall Street VP who moonlights as a serial killer. It is based on the eponymous novel by Bret Easton Ellis. Unfortunately I haven't yet read the novel, but I think the film can be meaningfully analyzed independently.

The film follows Bateman's life before, during and after he murders Paul Allen (Jared Leto), another Wall Street guy. He is engaged to Evelyn (Reese Witherspoon), a socialite who mostly cares about being socially correct and wants to marry Bateman for that reason. Bateman doesn't care about Evelyn and is having an affair with the drug-addicted Courtney (Samantha Mathis), who is engaged to his closeted homosexual colleague Luis (Matt Ross). Bateman is jealous of Allen's job and social status and kills him. As he tries to cover up the murder, Detective Donald Kimball (Willem Dafoe) starts investigating Allen's alleged disappearance. He has a nice assistant, Jean (Cloe Sevigny), who suspects that there is something strange about him. Throughout the film, Bateman murders numerous women and hires a prostitute (Cara Seymour), who he names "Christie".

All of the actors and actresses give splendid performances, but no one comes close to Bale. If they had chosen a lesser actor to portray Bateman, the film would have been a disaster. Bateman is the narrator and the focus of every single scene. Therefore, I think it would be impossible for me not to select his character as the focus of my analysis.

The film almost explicitly states that Bateman lacks identity. In one of the opening scenes, he says that while "there is an idea of a Patrick Bateman", he is "simply not there". This view is further supported by the fact that he does not mind being mistaken for someone else and that he often makes up names for the prostitutes he hires. He does not consider it important. When Bale portrays Bateman in social situations, he makes it clear that Bateman is acting and that every word he utters is insincere. He is simply trying to fit in by pretending to be like everyone else. His obsessive talk about popular music before acts of violence, could also be interpreted as trying to fit in.

While I accept this interpretation, I would also argue that there is a real Patrick Bateman, beyond the feelings of jealosy and greed that he admits experiencing. In the trailer above, Bateman attempts to partake in the very misogynistic conversation they are having about women. He tells an anecdote about a serial killer's views on women and finds it hilarious. He is, however, the only one. This is the real him. He is fascinated by murder and mayhem and this idea will be more intelligible later, in my discussion of the ending. Bale's performance clearly informs the audience when Bateman is acting and when he is sincere, and if there was no Bateman, this distinction should not be so easily identified.

One of Bateman's main character traits is his focus on appearances. In the beginning of the film, we are treated to most of his morning routine and a detailed narration of every single step. We also see him working out and tanning, all to keep himself fit and handsome. He is an expert on fashion and even uses a Jean Paul Gaultier bag when disposing of a body. He is also very much bothered by other people's fashion faux pas and is not above correcting them. This shallowness goes even further, for example in this famous scene where Bateman and his colleagues compare business cards:

It is important to note that all of their cards are very similar, white with black text, and that it seems unneccessary to put too much emphasis on their trivial differences. Bateman is distraught that Paul Allen has a nicer business card than he and along with the fact that Allen can get a reservation at Dorsia, this results in him killing Allen. Paul Allen can be viewed as Bateman's perfect self; he has a better job, better connections and, as is revealed after the murder, a nicer and more expensive apartment. He is arrogant and shallow, but more successful than Bateman. After murdering Allen, Bateman even pretends to be him when hiring prostitutes. Admiration turns to jealosy, turns to anger and finally violence. As Bateman axes Allen in the head, he screams "Try getting a reservation at Dorsia now you fucking stupid bastard!" Dorsia is the most popular restaurant in Manhattan and only the most well-connected people can get a reservation. Bateman cannot. Dorsia represents what Bateman lacks and he often tries, unsuccessfully, to get a reservation. He twice fakes getting a reservation; he first tricks a drugged Courtney that they are at Dorsia and later tells Jean that they are going to Dorsia for dinner, when he in fact plans to murder her at his apartment.

Bateman's sexuality is also debatable. While he has sex with multiple women in the film, he seems to take more pleasure from hurting them rather than from the sex. In one scene, when he has a threeway with two prostitutes, he even checks himself out in the mirror, flexing his muscles. Afterwards, he hurts them with a coat-hanger. Bateman could be viewed as a latent homosexual, which would explain his promiscuity as overcompensating, and his fear of his sexuality would explain his hatred of Luis, who even comes on to him. For more on this, see Rantasmo's review.

While Bateman mostly prefers to be alone, he does have one person that almost could be considered a friend: Timothy Bryce (Justin Theroux). Bryce is very similar to Bateman, but he is not considered a threat. Early in film, Bateman describes Bryce as "the most interesting person [he] know[s]" and the two of them are shown doing cocaine together in club bathroom, where Bryce confides in Bateman about the side-effects of his steroid use. In the business card scene, Bateman is bothered by the fact that Bryce prefers Allen's business card to his. This implies that he cares about Bryce's opinion and the fact that he never considers murdering Bryce, even though he knows that he is having an affair with Evelyn, shows that their relationship is different from his relationships to other colleagues.

Bateman also has a special relationship with his assistant Jean. Bateman invites her to his apartment planning to kill her, but after a message from Evelyn on his answering machine, revealing to Jean that he is still engaged, he changes his mind and tells her to leave or else she might get hurt. Jean thinks he is referring to emotional pain and leaves. My interpretation as to why he spared her revolves around their conversation before Evelyn's message. She is genuinely nice to him, which no other character seems to be, and tells him about her plans and dreams, which he insincerely asked about. Bateman sees his other victims as shallow, horrible people, much like he views himself, and when he notices that Jean is different, he no longer wants to kill her. Instead, he sends her away because he is afraid that his urges might force him to. She is also the first person he calls when he suffers a breakdown.

SPOILER ALERT: The following four paragraphs discuss the ending of the film.

In a twist ending, it is revealed that Paul Allen is alive and well. Bateman is given this information by his lawyer, who refers to him as Davis. Before this, Bateman went to dispose of Allen's corpse, but found that Allen's remains are nowhere to be found. He is confused and frustrated that his lawyer doesn't believe his confession, and concludes that while he has escaped righteous punishment for his crimes, he does not feel better and will continue to inflict his pain on others.

While Bateman still believes that he did all of the horrible things the film has shown us, we, on the other hand, are forced to conclude that Bateman is insane. This, while a bit unexpected, is not too hard to accept, since we have have seen him taking medication in moments of stress. Insanity would also explain some of the film's more unrealistic  scenes, such as him blowing up a police car by shooting it (which even surprised himself) and killing Christy in a stairwell by dropping a chainsaw on her from several floors up. In the end, Jean also finds disturbing drawings in his calendar, revealing his morbid fantasies.

The fact that he never killed Paul Allen has huge consequences for the rest of the film. Every scene in Allen's apartment or referencing his disappearance must be figments of his imagination. Whether or not he actually committed other murders is uncertain. This also implies that Detective Kimball never existed, since there was in fact nothing for him to investigate. This makes sense, considering that Kimball in one scene shows Bateman a Huey Lewis and the News CD, which Bateman had played during the murder. Kimball could be interpreted as Bateman's fear of being discovered for what he is (whatever that may be).

Through this, we may interpret Bateman's obsessive need to fit in and be normal not as a way of covering for his murders or latent homosexuality, but for his mental illness. He must focus his attention on his appearance, since he cannot deal with what lies beneath. Maybe he created his psychopath persona as an excuse for him to pretend that there is nothing inside him worth thinking about, that he simply isn't there.

There are many reasons why this is one of my favorites. For one thing, it is extremely memorable. There are three scenes where Bateman plays and talks about music and these will stick with you like Alex (Malcolm McDowell) singing "Singing in the Rain" before raping a woman in A Clockwork Orange (Stanley Kubrick, 1971). Whenever I hear "Hip to be Square", "Sussudio" or "The Greatest Love of All", I think of Paul Allen's murder, Bateman in a threeway and lesbian foreplay respectively.

The film has remained controversial for a number of reasons. One of the more profound accusations have been misogyny. I will not deny that there is a lot of violence against women in the film and that nearly every female character is weak or timid. This film was definitely not made with a female audience in mind (excluding Bale's handsomeness and many nude or partially nude scenes). In its defense, the misogynist Bateman is not meant to be sympathized with. No one is supposed to view him as any kind of role model. That being said, I would not go so far as to suggest that the film uses misogyny as a way to critique misogynistic societal norms or conventions. Personally, I think some scenes go too far, but I can forgive them in the context of the rest of the film.

My main reason for loving this film can be seen on this page. There is just so much to think and talk about (and I haven't even mentioned the most common interpretation: as a critique of the shallowness of the 1980s) and as you should have realized by now, that is what I love to do.