Do we always need motivations on why killers kill?
This is a good question.
I don't think that killers in movies always need motivations--and "just because" is obviously terrifying enough.
But not knowing a killer's motivation only really works in a movie that is strongly plotted and acted. In my opinion, this movie got most of its interest out of wondering why the killers were doing this to Colleen and what was going to happen to her in the end.
When we do get to the end, it's left ambiguous as to why they targeted Colleen or even what they did with her after the final photograph. I personally felt like the movie was building to a reveal that never happened. There were so many fussy details (like how they posed the dead girls; talking to people/treating them like "cats"; etc), that it felt like there was supposed to be some rhyme or reason behind it.
How did the killers meet/know each other? Why include the detail of them being gay (or being strongly implied as being gay)? Why the obsession with the photographs? How did they choose the other victims?
My reaction to the ending was a resounding "eh." When you leave things unanswered at the end of a story, the purpose is usually to get the audience engaged and thinking about what happened, etc. But the movie didn't make enough sense and didn't make enough of an impression for me to be interested in any of those questions.
reply
share