Other mistake: Several close-ups of the business cards of Patrick Bateman and his associates reveal a misspelling of the word "Acquisitions" (the "c" is missing - not a small error, given that this is the name of their department). (00:18:35)
Suggested correction: The business cards seen in that scene are supposed to be bad. An expert on business cards once reviewed the scene for a YouTube video and pointed out many aesthetic flaws in them, including this one. The subtle joke is that Patrick and his friends are all pretentious and deluded, thinking they're masters of style while they can't even spell words right. This is more explicit in the book, where paying close attention to the clothing Bateman describes, people's outfits make no sense.
Other mistake: In the nightclub scene where Patrick and Bryce do coke in the bathroom, pay attention to how they are dressed. When the scene is over and they are talking to the three girls, they are actually wearing different clothes... which are the same clothes they were wearing at the very beginning of the movie. This mistake was admitted by the director Mary Harron in her DVD commentary. She says that the editor, Andrew Marcus, suggested moving the snorting scene later in the movie to a different nightclub to avoid opening the movie with such a strong image, and when Harron objected, "I can't, they were wearing different clothes," Marcus replied, "Nobody will notice." Well... (00:54:30)
Other mistake: In the scene where Bateman is about to murder Paul Allen, he turns on the CD player and walks towards the axe meaning to say "...song's so catchy;" but if you watch his mouth, you can see that in place of the word "catchy" there is a blatant voiceover. Who knows what he said in the original shooting. (00:28:25)
Other mistake: When Jean looks at Patrick's increasingly twisted designs, it turns out that he drew a woman with a chainsaw stuck in her back on November 13th. That does not appear to make sense by the most basic movie inner logic (even if we discount any real-life reference to the year), considering he murdered Paul on December 20th and his descent into madness isn't supposed to be a slow one. (01:34:00)
Suggested correction: Just because he doodled the chainsaw on a specific date doesn't mean he killed her on that date.
It would have been quite strange if he just happened to draw a prediction of the murder months earlier, and it wouldn't make sense that he would keep a normal diary until September, then go crazy for months after but keep doodling in November of an old diary that he should have already filled (the movie is supposed to be well into the new year) but only from a certain point and in a crescendo. Julia... ahem, Jean didn't just find a scrapbook of insanity; she found the diary of his increasing spiral into insanity.
Other mistake: Despite the intended uniformity of misspells of the department name, Bateman's card actually has an added mistake, lacking the space between the ampersand and the second name (it's "Pierce & Pierce" instead of "Pierce and Pierce"). It should also be noted that not only do they share the remaining misspelling, but their contact info is also exactly the same, including the phone number. (00:18:45)
Other mistake: When Bateman has just killed Paul Allen and is dragging him out of the building you can see the trail of blood on the floor where the bag is leaking. When he walks out the front door to the cab suddenly the bag is not leaking anymore. There is no trail of blood. (00:29:50)
Suggested correction: That I believe is intentional. In the end of the movie, it becomes very questionable whether Bateman really did kill anyone at all. So in this case, if he did not kill Paul Allen, there couldn't have been a real trail of blood, just the one in his mind. Also, Louis Carruthers only noticed the overnight bag when Patrick was loading in into the cab's trunk and not that it contained something; the same goes for the security guard at Bateman's condo, who didn't take any notice of the bag, nor the trail.
We can certainly 'believe' it is intentional, like other subtle and not-so-subtle absurdities, but the movie does not characterise it as a specific, explicit hallucination of Patrick, so I think it would be better to have it in the 'main' section of the mistakes. Otherwise, just about any continuity discrepancy can be written off as Patrick just being a schizo and seeing things that are not there. In fact, in the director's commentary, she says that they wanted the doorman to ignore it, and she speaks of it as if the doorman is oblivious and "uninterested," I think is the word she used. So for what it's worth, it's supposed to be real.
