The similarity of the women was confusing. If the story had been told in a completely linear fashion, you would have this: The family in the park had their little boy (Caleb) taken. There was media speculation that the family might be responsible and the father hanged himself leaving his wife, Caterina, alone with her parents. Caleb was never returned and his body is found. After some considerable time poring over all the evidence, she was convinced she had found the abductor and the police officer in charge of the case introduced her to someone who could "help" her. That gave rise to the sequence where the man with the beard took her to a place where someone was being tortured. Later, she evidently decided to go ahead with her revenge.
Her parents then assisted her in kidnapping the family from the diner (we saw them telling the family which road to take before later turning up to "help" them) and the intimidating men in the diner were part of the "help" crew who ran the family off the road and took them to the abandoned warehouses where Caterina took over the interrogation of the woman. At this point, we find out that this woman was the one who took Caleb from the park. It then descends into a bit of rot about demons.
I could follow the story, but did find some things confusing: the woman's husband (in the warehouse) seemed not to know about any of it, yet their daughter appeared to be about 5 years old. So had it taken Caterina that long to find her suspect and organise her revenge? Also, very near the end, Caterina's father (who is in charge of almost drowning the little girl) phones Caterina and tells her that he thinks there is someone outside - this never goes anywhere.
reply
share