I assume Vic was torturing Roy Gellis. (He had his thumb in a vise and then cut it off, right?) Why? What information did Roy have that Vic needed? Vic must have known that Roy was sent by Gerrard and that Gerrard knew about the heist.
So why did he torture Roy?
I liked this movie a lot. And I understand why it has not done well at the box office. Maybe that's what I like about it.
[deleted]
He was a sadist.
sharethe thumb has me bemused too.
if he was a sadist, why would he choose to dispatch his wife (who he hated) using such a speedy method?! Why torture a stranger?
I assumed he knew that Gerrard knew something, but how much? He wanted to know just exactly/specifically what Gerrard knew, and what he had told Gelles to do: find out more? check out something? Kill both? Only one? Neither? Did Gerrard know Renata was in on it? Etc.
shareSpoiler *********************************************
Did you all notice when Roy was released from the trunk his hand was wrapped in a bandage?? Why bandage him just to see him slowy drown in the icy lake..
"Why bandage him just to see him slowy drown in the icy lake.."
Vic makes it clear he wants to torture Gelles even more.
He bandages him so that Roy won't bleed in the car, trunk, carpet, etc.
http://z4.invisionfree.com/Annotated_Lee/index.php?act=idx
Or, perhaps Roy bandaged himself with a handkerchief he happened to have on his person?
I'm not befuddled by the thumb in the vice so much as by Charlie's being so slow on the uptake - consider the progression of events:
1) Charlie goes to the massage parlor, observes bloody thumb in vise.
2) Charlie ventures to Vic's house, immediately finding Gladys dead with one through her noggin
3) Vic confronts Charlie, pinning blame for Gladys' murder on Roy and claiming Roy was going to kill him too.
At this point, Charlie's B.S. detector should be ringing full volume - since it wasn't Vic's thumb in the vise (you could see his uninjured hands), who could the thumb belong to?
Vic then takes Charlie into his garage, and in the ensuing scene learns that it is indeed Vic's thumb. So how could Roy have murdered Gladys when he was in the control of Vic at that point? Charlie should have known right then and there that Vic was playing him and would likely kill him. Yet he continued on with Vic's plan. That made no sense, given Charlie's general shrewdness and cleverness.
Coenhead,
I noticed this too. It seems to be a continuity error at first -- if Vic cut off the thumb as the massage parlor, and then forced Roy at gunpoint to his house, how did Roy get free to kill Gladys?
But I think it's intentional, and it's a tipoff that Vic is lying. You can see Charlie thinking about this (something Cusak is very good at conveying) but consider how much he's had to drink, the stress he's under and how fast all of this is happening.
Still, it would have been nice if we'd seem him figure it out for himself.
I don't know about the rest of your points, but ROY didn't kill the wife, Vic did...
share"I noticed this too. It seems to be a continuity error at first -- if Vic cut off the thumb as the massage parlor, and then forced Roy at gunpoint to his house, how did Roy get free to kill Gladys? "
That last part was hypothetical, the poster knows Vic killed his wife. They are just stating that because of the situation, it would have been impossible for Vic to kill her.