Who in the hell killed Legba and the other girl? I sat through this damm movie for 1 hour and 45 minutes and I have to admit I am totally clueless! My SO says Ellen, the older woman did it. I don't get it. Give me some answers please! Thanks.
shareThe girl had been coerced into being some powerful person's mistress - meaning Legba and her had to split up. They used to go out with one another, but it seems like they separated in order to earn their livings by having sex with other people.
Halfway through, when the driver chases Legba with a gun, I got the impression that his boss wanted Legba completely out of the picture.
Towards the end of the movie, Legba gets disillusioned with his life apart from the girl, possibly because he knows that Ellen and Brenda love him and he can't sleep with them anymore. So he goes off to be with the girl, knowing that her lover might kill him (that's why he leaves his money with his mother). The lover, as Ellen points out just before the end, probably caught them and had his men kill both of them.
I basically had the same interpretation as you, that Legba was killed by Frank, the girl's driver. However I don't think that Legba necessarily went back to the ex-girlfriend at the end of the movie. Frank was after Legba, likely knew where his mother lived, and probably caught up with Legba moments after he left his mother's shack. My feeling is that, when the young lady had Legba picked up by Frank in the Mercedes, in the middle of the film, she marked him (and herself) for death. After all, she was essentially betraying the Colonel and doing so in front of the Colonel's man, Frank. So Frank would have told the Colonel what she did that day and then received the order to kill both of the young people. Those are my thoughts...
But why were the bodies dumped at the beach resort, other than to wrap the movie up with a nice bow?
I think they were dumped at the resort to send a message to the white tourists who came there to take advantage of that country's young people. Also, it allows the filmmakers to ask the question, what's worse: being exploited by wealthy foreigners for sexual favors, or dying in the arms of someone you genuinely love, and who loves you back?
shareJust saw this sorry excuse for a film, and I was wondering the same thing. It just isn't explained. If sublety were applied, I could understand it, but it seemed to me it just amounted to a huge hole in the script that wasn't repaired. This was a really sloppy film, not at all well directed, and the acting and dialogue were, in my opinion, just awful. I never thought the usually reliable Charlotte Rampling could come off as amateurish, but she does. And Karen Young is really miscast. The dialogue she utters is embarrassing. There was almost no conviction in this film. It seemed like it was made in a hurry to beat a deadline. Was everything done on the first take? The awkward pauses and tentative glances by the actors left me wondering if they rehearsed the scenes once (if at all), and then shot them.
share"Just saw this sorry excuse for a film, and I was wondering the same thing. It just isn't explained. If sublety were applied, I could understand it, but it seemed to me it just amounted to a huge hole in the script that wasn't repaired. This was a really sloppy film, not at all well directed, and the acting and dialogue were, in my opinion, just awful. I never thought the usually reliable Charlotte Rampling could come off as amateurish, but she does. And Karen Young is really miscast. The dialogue she utters is embarrassing. There was almost no conviction in this film. It seemed like it was made in a hurry to beat a deadline. Was everything done on the first take? The awkward pauses and tentative glances by the actors left me wondering if they rehearsed the scenes once (if at all), and then shot them."
I didn't find anyone of the flaws that you speak off, i actually thought it was a brilliant movie.
"Sometimes we have to physically revisit and confront the past in order to move forward"