MovieChat Forums > The Perfect Host (2011) Discussion > (Spoilers) The answer to the big questio...

(Spoilers) The answer to the big question is so obvious

posted 13 years ago by forever_mclaren
17 replies | jump to latest

So people (including the friends with which I saw this movie) want to debate whether he actually killed his other victims.

I never understood this debate.

Of course he did.

If he let all the other people he tortured live SURELY by now he would have been discovered. Surely by now SOMEONE would have told the police. I mean if you go through something like that and wake up on the street, wouldn't the natural impulse be to run to the nearest police station, covered with fingerprints, hair, DNA, etc.?

So I just don't get this debate. He let John live to get the money because he knew John was implicated in a crime and would therefore be wary about showing up in a police department to tattle about what happened in the house (of course, that didn't fully pan out, but the reasoning is very clear).

[–] darkdomino 13 years ago

From my understanding, he let John go because he was bound to. Call it serial-killer code of ethics, but he lost to a game of chess with John and promised to let him go. When John accused him of being a liar, he said something like "I'm a lot of things, but not a liar." - I felt this was significant, because in many ways this was a game for Warwick and he feels bound to the rules.

I believe that he killed many, if not all of his victims. I think in a way he just wanted to *beep* John one last time before sending him on his way. As we saw at the end of the film, that may have been a mistake on his part.... a mistake that now has drawn the attention of his co-worker onto him. The implication being that he's going to invite his co-worker Ben (I think that's his name) over for dinner and kill him. He can't let Ben live, knowing what he does.

"I've owed you this for a long time, and I pay my debts...to the penny"

[–] drad1143 13 years ago

Obviously the co-worker (Detective) doesn't believe a word Warwick says in his office. Pointing out many reasons why he's lying about the Polaroid. Of course he's going to say something to the other officers before going to his place for dinner (Alone?) If Warwick killed him and the detective goes missing, he's *beep* Unless, he has something he can frame him for. I would've liked to see how that played out.

[–] darkdomino 13 years ago

Yes! I believe that Warwick's imaginary friends were in police uniforms because they... just like the detective who is meeting him for dinner at the end... they got a little to close to Warwick's crimes. It's clear that he's offed several of his coworkers, and Ben is going to be no different. He's so methodical and planned that he's probably been able to get away with it for some time.

"I've owed you this for a long time, and I pay my debts...to the penny"

[–] Brian11 13 years ago

This thread is why this movie was so fantastic! It has a lot of unanswered questions. Now that's not to say sloppily left loose ends, but rather a very well written story.

It leaves much of it up to interpretation and does it's job...to get people thinking! That, among many other reasons, make this an exceptional film!

[–] jejozi 13 years ago

So he just happened to have an extensive sfx makeup kit?

The movie had potential, but you can only suspend your disbelief so much. Too many coincidences, the plate shard transfer, cutting the rope in 30 seconds.....give this one a 6 only because I like Niles...er....David Hyde Pierce's performance so much.

This will be the high point of my day; it's all downhill from here.

[–] timkat10 13 years ago

I think the makeup kit was just part of his hobby (taking wierd pictures, scrapbooking them, and murdering the people), kind of like having wood-working tools if you like to build things out of wood. The piece of the plate didn't really add up to me. Pierce's character was so maticulous about cleanliness, I find it unlikely he would have missed that piece on the table. Of course it did add some suspense to the movie. I find it very hard to believe the piece could cut the rope, though. As far as "how long" it took to cut it, I don't have a problem with that. We don't usually have real time in a movie, so time can lapse. I personally loved the movie. It was different. Even though Warwick was actually a "bad guy", I wanted him to get away with the money.

[–] pope_duke 13 years ago

Of course he did?

How are you so sure?

I watched this film this past weekend and I found it entertaining. It is rather thought-provoking, and I kind of wish some things had been different. I am having trouble with some of the aspects. Now, I do not mind unanswered questions, and whether or not Warwick killed anyone at all and how many victims he had are some of those questions.

How many different people were in the scrapbook he showed John? How did he 'acquire' his prior victims? He is a high-ranking police officer, so maybe he always chose criminals. They would not know who he is, and they might not bother to go to the police after surviving such an ordeal, just like John did not. I know it is a stretch, but if they were brought to the house unconscious and delivered to some street locale in similar fashion, it is plausible.

It seems silly that Warwick would let John go and just dump him right outside his own house. How did he know this would lead to John discerning some double cross from his accomplice and then his eventually being able to take the money from John? It's all a stretch, whether he killed his prior victims or not.

Did Warwick let John go due to his sense of "honor", since John did win the chess game, or was letting John go always part of the plan of his own chess game? I felt that the twists may have even deviated a bit from the acceptability of the film, but they do present an interesting story.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Incognito2012 13 years ago

What other victims? I just saw one "victim" in the scrap book, the homeless/criminal guy, the rest were drawings. Did I miss something? I was sleepy when I watch it.

[–] jachandler333 13 years ago

Yep, that's what I was thinking. There was only one other real person in the book. And no blood in the tub. I'm thinking that he had imaginary friends, but that he had not killed anyone. But, who knows! That is the great thing about this movie!

"Well, yeah, they're baby-eating badasses man, what more do you need to know?"

[–] he88 13 years ago

I have the same thoughts as the last post here....I'm not so sure he was a killer at all. His book really did only show one person. Just because he has a delusion of several people being around him doesn't have to mean they are people who he killed somehow. Although someone who is such a full blown schizo wouldn't most like be able to hold a high ranking job like he had.

I think the real question is...Was he going to kill the other detective.....Or was he planning to just drug him up good and put him into a lot of compromising positions to take pictures with? I'm thinking that's probably the more likely scenereo.

The more I think of it the more I don't think he ever killed anyone in his party fantasies. If he truely was a killer...It wouldn't make a difference that he lost the game and wanted to keep his word....If he's a real seriel killer...He'd kill....He'd have to kill because it would be his nature. In the end I think the other detective is alive, well, and embarresed as hell....

[–] Incognito2012 13 years ago

I agree, I don't think he is a killer. If he did kill the guy in the picture, there should be blood in his clothes or in the bathtub. All we see is his twisted "art", focused on instilling fear or create frightful situations (for example, he uses a fake knife in his movie, he doesn't actually cut himself). That's why I also think that he didn't lose the chess game, he let the other guy win to create more tension and, maybe, because he knew how John would react. He is aware of his situation, how the girl played him, and tells him that he's just a supporting character, or something like that, in order to provoke him. So he lets him loose to catch him again. It's all a psychological game.

[–] libra113 13 years ago

Perhaps it's all a sick and twisted game he plays with criminal and seedy types to scare them onto the strait and narrow. :)

http://dawnofthedeadfanfiction.bravehost.com/index.html

[–] weirdJ 9 years ago

I like your hypothesis. :)

[–] jabberttp 13 years ago

...and quit calling me SURELY!

(sorry, I couldn't resist)...

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] charlesadams1 13 years ago

That was the absolute WORST kind of house though for a serial killer. They would not live in a house with that kind of exposure. The typical killer lives in older houses with big basements and few windows and curtains on all the windows.

You don't want passerbys to notice you killing someone thru that giant plate glass window now.

They also don't like living too close to any neighbors so usually there will be a big fenced in yard (again, to keep snoops away)

And how did he get these victims? Didn't seem like the kind of neighborhood where people knocked on doors. And he didn't seem like the type who went out much. More of a "home body".