They were essentially scam artists/con artists. They went to select families and played them, conning them out of their wealth. Which is why Cyrus said that he'd "played Katie long before the money and the chocolates". She tried to con him into killing her father-in-law and sister-in-law so that she could inherit her father-in-law's wealth, run away with her brother-in-law and live happily ever after, leaving her pot smoking husband behind in the dust. And yet he ended up seeing through her plan, in the end playing her and having ehr and her husband take the fall.
I personally LOVED this movie - I was telling my friends about it and described it as "being written in style similar to that of Stephen King, but without the horror/blood/gore" and "having a Hitchcock type twist at the end". I may be doing Hitchcock fans a great disservice by comparing this movie to the legend, but personally, I think it's pretty accurate. Hitchcock always had a knack for playing with your mind psychologically and then pulling the rug out from under you at the last minute. That's what this film did for me. We saw Cyrus as an innocent, a wanderer, though we knew *something* was up with him. Why was he blow drying his hand? What was he examining under a microscope? Then we realize it wasn't Katy that was conning him...he was conning the entire family...and then BOOM! His sister's thrown into the mix, too! Completely catches you off guard (unless you have a knack for reading between the lines and predicting movie plots and can see twists like this coming a mile away).
And there were some great dialogue moments in the film, you have to admit. Like when she asks him if there's a mess..."Now isn't that a stupid question? What if there is? Do you want me to call housekeeping and have them clear it up?"
reply
share