Death


Was he killed by the club owner or did he fake his own death? What do you think?

reply

It's not real. If it were real it would be labeled "documentary" instead of "crime / thriller".

reply

I never said that it was real idiot, I was just inquiring about the plot, is that alright?

reply

He's talking about the movie, moron. I say he faked it.

http://us.imdb.com/name/nm2339870/

reply

You're replying to a 5-year old post, you dumb ape.

reply

I think the club owner must've had some mob connections or something and our protagonist got tipped off about some large deal going down at short notice.. hence he didn't really know where the money was. Perhaps even the guy at the end (the one who's been in prison) told Kasper about the deal then gave him up to the mob for some kind of protection. Which could be why he was so cagey about mentioning him at the end.

It was an awesome film.

And yes.. i know its not real.

reply

Thank you :)

reply

I think the guy was savy enough to fake his own death. I mean he was always talking about being 'two steps ahead' of everyone. He could have pulled it off. Plus they couldn't determine from the amount of blood left whether someone could have survived or not.

And yes, I know it wasn't real.

It was a good movie nonetheless.

reply

I think the fact that the club owner never reported the robbery made it clear that he had Kaspar murdered. Even if he was to attempt to fake his own death, it wouldn't account for the Russian owner of Slicks (Goran Uschev I believe his name was) not reporting the burglary at all and not getting the insurance money for it. He clearly didn't want the police to know about it and to not be suspicious of him in the disappearance of Kaspar. The fact that Larry Evans made an allusion to "having to sell someone else up the river to get off" and the way that he was unwilling to say anything about Kaspar to the filmmakers (even though he admitted to knowing him) painted a pretty clear picture that he sold him out to make life easier on himself.

reply

I think you're completely right about the ambiguity of Larry Evans' release from prison to "work furlough" or whatever, and the cagey way Kasper talks to the filmmakers about how he heard about the Slicks job, not to mention the freaked out way he behaves to the film crew during and after the job. I think it is all meant to lead us to question whether Kasper was "set up" on that caper.

However, all the things I mentioned above could also be read as clues that Kasper was planning his own disappearance, and even that Larry is in on the secret. Frankly, I can't think of another reason a professional crook would let his crimes be filmed, except that he was conning or using the filmmakers somehow. And who steered the filmmakers to Kasper? Wouldn't the officials be happy with how many robberies go from "unsolved" to "solved"? Kasper and Larry could have planned just how much of that info Larry could feed the cops as easily as planning how much blood to splash around the inside of that car.

As far as Uschev not reporting the robbery -- no mobster is going to tell the cops about Mob money being taken from his nightclub. Or claim it as an insurance loss. Or talk about it to a film crew. Which Kasper would know, and could use if he were planning to pin his fake death on the Mob guy. Again, it is beautifully ambiguous. Uschev is either clamming up just because he's a Russian mafia guy, or also because he's responsible for Kasper's death.

You can probably tell I'm leaning toward the "happy ending." Remember what Larry tells the camera: "He's smart. He'll know when to step away."





last 2 dvds: Wendy and Lucy (2008) & Moontide (1942)

reply

How about he used the "documentarians" to fake his death? He lets them into his life, he shows them what he's up to, showing that people might have motives against him. He is then unavailable to them for two months. If he decides that he wants to disappear, he simply makes it seem like he is taking a huge risk by doing a job without the usual preparations that he has already demonstrated so well. I think that the (real) filmmakers show him making extremely thorough preparations with the grocery store and Laila, to juxtapose that right afterward with this seemingly amateurish job he did at Slick's. That is all caught on tape, showing motives for his murder, as well as all of those reasons to believe it. Then the (real) filmmakers show us yet again the clip from the opening of the movie, with his memorable quote about being two steps ahead, as another clue for us, the audience.

I guess it could be possible that the owner of Slick's was in on this, and allowed him to pretend to rob his business, which would explain why this supposedly robbed business owner was so adamantly against the documentary crew interviewing him.

Thoughts?

reply

Dan,

I had considered (and decided) that he was set-up. I hadn't even thought about the use of the documentation to disappear. Nice. Not sure you're right, but nice none-the-less.

reply

Here's my two cents:

I agree for the most part with the last few posts. I am sure he was using the documentarians to set up his own death. This guy is incredibly intelligent, and from the jailhouse interviews has demonstrated that he is incredibly distrusting ,when asked he said he would never work with a crew, if he wouldn't even work with fellow thieves, why would he trust documentarians to help him on the cinemark heist. This sort of leads into my next point, remember when the guy in jail was reminiscing about another thief who always worked alone, trusted no one, but trusted him, and they helped each other pull off jobs they couldn't pull off alone (alarm bells dinging in my mind at this point in my looking back on the film). Remember how the documentary crew wouldn't have even found Karr to film if it weren't for the guy in jail (There could have also been an advantage to the jail guy to having 'hundreds' of open burglaries solved when Karr disappeared, but I don't remember if there was)? Keeping all this in mind, it seems obvious to me that the whole thing was staged, I do not think the mob guy was in on it though, I think he was just another tool for Karr. Karr needed someone that would have serious motive to make him disappear to complete the whole scam, a regular store owner would leave it to police, but if a mob guy's dirty money is involved (which would have gone completely unnoticed unless the documentarians had filmed it, hmmm) it seems much more feasible for the mob guy to have done away with him. On a final note, it doesn't make sense for the mob guy to have disposed of Karr's body in such a manner that it was never found, but to leave this 'definitive' evidence of his death through all of the blood in the car.

tl;dr: Karr is still alive, it was staged.

reply

I tried to reason this out so that Karr actually faked his death because he was one of the coolest movie characters I've ever seen, but I just couldn't do it in a way that made sense. So, here was my ultimate take:

If I recall, in an early prison interview with the white burglar he says that he's in prison because someone snitched on him. I took it to mean that he either knew or, at least, thought Karr ratted him out to save himself. I always assumed that at least one of the 100+ burglaries Karr committed previously was on one of Goran's properties. The white burglar has some sort of connection to Goran or simply gets in touch with him. Goran comes down and the inmate tells him, "Remember that club of yours that got hit a few years back? I know who did it." Then the inmate gets in touch with Karr and convinces him that he knows of an easy, in and out hit at Slick's. Karr agrees believing it will be easy money and seeing that the supermarket job was taking longer than expected he needed the cash. So, they hit Slick's and when Karr finds the money he realizes he's been set up. No way a guy like Goran would just leave thousands of dollars in an unlocked drawer in some dive bar. Which is why Karr flips out on the documentarians, because he's freaking that he's been set up. They get back to Karr's hideout and he tells them they have to go and he's done with this. Karr lays low for the next two months, at which point he decides even though the cash was in plain site it must have been in the hopes out catching any burglar and not for Karr specifically. So, once Karr thinks the coast is clear he hooks back up with the filmmakers and they set out to hit the theater. They do the theater job and a few days later Karr mysteriously disappears. Goran took him out, after finally finding the right time to do so. Then, in exchange for the inmates help in taking out Karr, Goran (who I assumed had police connections) got the inmate an early release (he was supposed to serve several more years, if I recall correctly). When the filmmakers go back to the inmate to try to get answers he's evasive and refuses to talk about Karr. I saw this as not wanting to expose himself. He's gone straight, has a job at a diner, and just wants to get on with his life. He knows Goran took Karr out and doesn't want to say or do anything that would give Goran reason to kill him as well.

Also, why did Karr allow the filmmakers to document him?

I saw that as a sign of Karr's egomania. Yes, he maps out every last detail of a job. But at the same time he's an thief who does what he wants with no regard of society's laws or who he hurts in the process. While he's careful in his planning I also saw him as a guy who considered himself a true artist. And like any artist he wanted his art to be seen and appreciated. In addition, he's lonely. I think that he appreciated having some company as well as people to look at what he's doing and stand back in awe of his talents.

reply

The hunting scenes seemed out-of-place as I watched the movie. However, in retrospect and as an explanation to the question of where Kaspar could have obtained the blood found in the car, they suddenly make more narrative sense.

This would presuppose that the police didn't test the blood for human DNA but that would be an easy argument given the way the police are portrayed as ineffective and inept.

reply

Also, what was the key that was "none of your business" that he put on right before the theater job?

I definitely think that Casper realized something was up with the money left in the drawer, and spent the next two months thinking of how to disappear and make one last big score that he could live off for a long time. I bet he's with his hunting buddy living in the woods, which is likely where he was for the two months laying low.

reply

The thought occurred to me at one point that maybe he faked his own death, but then I realized that didn't really make any sense. No one knew who he was anyway. He made a big deal about keeping to himself because he knew that he had to keep a low profile. The cops found his car and had no idea who it belonged to, nor did they know anything about Kasper until the filmmakers gave them all the details of his crimes.

If he wanted to disappear, all he had to do was pick up and move somewhere else.

I have had it with these monkey-fightin' snakes on this Monday-to-Friday plane!

reply

These are all excellent theories; and I find it difficult to separate actual facts from plausible scenarios. Since Kaspar was not even on the police's radar, I agree we can surmise that he had no reason to make them believe he was dead. At least not with what we were given. The only people Kaspar could ultimately benefit from fooling are the other burglar, and Uschev. Fooling the documentarians (and by extension, the police)are both just a means to fool the two aforementioned individuals. His motives to fool Uschev... the obvious, which is that Kaspar discovered that Uschev knew he hit his place. What's odd about that scenario is that there was 'some' implication that possibly the location of the money at Slicks instantly tipped off Kaspar that he was setup. What's the setup? Uschev purposely leaving money there so he could be robbed? Why? Does a thug like Uschev need to go to that length to bait someone into a robbery then kill him for it? That makes no sense. Let's follow that possibility. He allows Kaspar to rob him, leaves a clue that informs Kaspar he's on to him, then perhaps forces Kaspar to cut him in on the theater heist? Maybe, but then what? Kaspar fakes his own death to cut out Uschev from his half of the heist? Leaving his thriving career, and crime center warehouse (all unknown to the cops) behind? I don't think so. This scenario leads to Uschev jacking Kaspar for the entire heist take, and killing him anyway. -I believe he was murdered by Uschev, and that the other burglar did give Kaspar the tip on Slicks, but ultimately sold him out to Uschev for his own benefit. --Had Kaspar staged his own death for any reason, given that the cops didn't know about his hideout/warehouse, he wouldn't have ever left evidence behind on 100+ burglaries he committed. It would only give them a reason to look into the possibility he'd faked it. He was a smart dude, and in that scenario would have only left enough behind to match up with the burglaries captured on film. Cops love things with a pretty bow tied on it. The guy burned stolen garbage and meticulously washed his tools... he's not leaving extra evidence behind on crimes nobody knew he committed. I like the happy endings too, but this doesn't seem to have been one. That boy got smoked.

reply

Ok I've watched several times this wk end on Netflix & thot this was awesome, except for stupidity of "documentarians" contacting cops. Now reading posts on here....I'm not sure if this is real or not!! Seems that maybe I missed some parts, bc i dont remember some of these things.

And what's the crime center warehouse? I saw it but dont get it.

reply

Lol..why would you even think this was real? It is a fake documentary..a mockumentary like Blair Witch. He faked his own death by the ways.



My feet smells like *beep* Its because I stepped on dog poop.

reply

Or perhaps the documentations started catching the crime bug and killed him after he counted out his big score.

Or not. The snitch idea seems more likely to me but it's fun to imagine how else it might have gone.

reply

[deleted]