MovieChat Forums > The Perfect Host (2011) Discussion > Allow me to explain the ending to you gu...

Allow me to explain the ending to you guys who are confused..

posted 14 years ago by xlangamesfl
36 replies | jump to latest

Been reading the posts on here asking all kinds of questions. Like did Warwick actually kill his other guests or why did he let John go. Was it the chess game he won? Etc.

Look I think the answer is starring us all in the face but the movie doesn't really convey it. Warwck is a cop right? He knows John is connected to a bank robbery where he just scored 300K.

So......what is there to gain from killing him? He would never see the money. Even if he played a part in catching the girlfriend there is no way he could just take the cash while the other officers were there assisting with the arrest.

He pretty much let John go with the hope and somewhat risky plan of getting to that money. He only took 1 pill in the morning because he needed to be "focused" remember? Was it calculated or could Warwick have possibly known he would have been put in the right place at the right time to get the money? No not really, but not letting John go meant 100% no chance of seeing the money.

The chess game does come in play because it revealed John's intelligence and ability to calculate your opponents move. When the officer informed Warwick that John's GF had double crossed him Warwick made a judgement call. He knew John would somehow find a way to get the upper hand on the GF and when that took place Warwick knew he needed to be there.

Yes he killed the previous guest and most certainly he will kill the detective when he comes to dinner that evening. They have nothing to offer. Now the film isn't perfect. Why did he dump John's body in plain sight or why did he have the makeup kit for fake gore?

Well the dumping of the body thing I cannot logicly explain.

As far as the makeup goes it's my theory that Warwick never actually cut any of his victims. Come on, this guy couldn't stand the sight of blood or any kind of mess. I think he applies the makeup to his victims to scare the hell out of them and screw them up mentally. He then takes pictures to scare his next victim. He strikes me as the type that would just kill them via drugs rather than make a mess and get blood everywhere.

The film didn't really do a very good job of fleshing out my above theory, but I think it's the answer to the main question about the film and to me it seems clear a day why he let John live. If he killed him he would never see that money.

[–] Calick 13 years ago

I agree with you on that. Warwick killed his previous victims, but he spared John's life because of the money and because he had "balls", as he says at the end.

[–] dazzyfresh 13 years ago

Also agree, just watched but would like to add that Warwick also used the make up for the video where he cuts himself, he reveals that this wasn't real during the part where John stabs him with the retractable blade and shows no cuts or scars.

Also he makes the point of never telling lies when he cuts him loose so anything that he mentioned during Johns torture would of happened in the past. Warwick new that if he set John free he could easily get him to retaliate voiding the deal.

He also had fancy dress masks so it was a regular thing for him to be dressing people up, possibly for the benefit of his baffled neighbour.

Chucking him on the rubbish pile was his last part of the torture process, which humiliated John, it was very unlikely that anyone like John would admit to that humiliation.

AS Warwick was leaving with the money their was clearly for our benefit a homeless man sprawled over pavement/curb maybe irony or suggestion?

At the end Warwick was captivated with a board behind his desk of missing and dead people/kids and he was elated with it.

[–] lucammii 13 years ago

Indeed, there is no scene in the movie where Warwick seems surprised to find out John's identity as the bank robber. However, this does not prove the scenario in which Warwick had already known that John was the rob banker while being in his house.

Why did Warwick let John live? Beats me but no other viewer is actually in the position to know because the movie is already all over the place. My best guess is that he indeed enjoys scaring his guests by applying make-up, drugging them and showing them pictures - but no actual killing. Remember there was a short bloody recording of Warwick cutting himself but during the scene with the retractable knife there are NO visible marks. So he must be doing those things for fun alone.

[–] trousers-3 13 years ago

"He strikes me as the type that would just kill them via drugs rather than make a mess and get blood everywhere."

Seeing as how most drug overdose deaths end with vomit and feces everywhere, this does not make sense to me.

[–] oddball_oddity-1 13 years ago

Yeah. And as far as messes go, that's probably why he did most of his torturing in the bath tub. Besides, not like he was afraid of making messes as long as he cleaned up after himself. He did smash a few things.

[–] QBallFra3 13 years ago

Personally, I don't think he killed ANY of his previous victims. He did the same thing he did to John. He takes the pictures of them cut up and killed to scare his "guests" with. It's him playing and toying with his guests for, as he puts it, "entertainment."

-For instance, there are no cuts/scars on his body from the knife that he put to his body in the "home video".

-There are retractable blades hung on his wall, enforcing the fact that everything is pretend.

-John at the end says, "You've never shot anybody!" - I think this is a way for the filmmakers to hint at the fact that Warwick never kills anyone when he brings his guests.

That's just my opinion though. This movie is open to a bunch of interpretations. 'Cause there really is nothing significant to suggest whether he killed his other victims or not. One of the reasons I really enjoyed this flick.

I am the phantom... My real name is Jerrryyyyy.

[–] munroe-9 13 years ago

If he doesn't kill his guests, though, how come nobody tells on him? Even if he finds some clever way to blackmail all of them, that's still pretty tenuous. I would think sooner or later they'd all turn him in, and even if the police didn't believe half of them, eventually they'd get suspicious.

Also, what was the deal with the chick writing the postcards? And the fact that he had delusions of people who weren't there? All very interesting, but it just wasn't explained fully.

[–] mtarshis 13 years ago

Warwick is a schizophrenic with borderline personality disorder. None of his actions can be explained rationally. As for the postcards, he wrote all of them himself- there is no "chick". All of his guests (except the one in the album) are products of his schizo hallucinations.

...hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies.

[–] munroe-9 13 years ago

To be clear, I knew the woman was totally imaginary - I just wondered if there was a back story to his writing these postcards to himself. That would make for an interesting story!

So, which of his former victims were now guests?

[–] yoladdy 12 years ago

It's because he doesn't regularly have guests. When he was flipping through his photo album there is only one guy in it. That guy most likely either stumbled into his house like John had, or Warrick had gone out of his way to invite him over for dinner. Other than that, there is no proof that Warrick has had a ton of victims. That being said, he may have "dinner parties" often with his imaginary friends, but a victim only stumbles along every now and then.

Proud member of the Hunger Games Assembly

[–] MikeyLikesIt_357 13 years ago

I agree with QBall.

Why else would he have that makeup kit loaded with "Blood" and "Skin" and all the other implements needed to make someone look cut up? I think this is his hobby, along with entertaining his "guests" of course, and that he hasn't killed anyone. As far as I could tell there was only one or two other victims in his book...

[–] grazeswithgoats 13 years ago

Question...I was kinda buzzed watching this but recall it pretty well....was there indication of more than one previous victim?

We could be watching him in the very early stage of his involvement of torturing real people.

Also, who knows what drugs he gave the victim in the pictures. They might have come to in their own home with no recolection of the previous night.

Check out my list, recommendations welcome.
http://www.imdb.com/list/Lx63i1kQerA/

[–] MikeyLikesIt_357 13 years ago

To be honest I could only identify the one other guy in the book. There might have been a few pictures of a girl, but it is far from conclusive.

So it is quite possible that Niles simply caught another criminal or even a homeless person and performed his little ritual on him. That would explain how he hasn't gotten caught yet.

[–] brownguy2004 13 years ago

thing is were all the other people, people who tried to rob him

or was he just snatching homless people off the street.

Reviews..reviews and MORE reviews
http://streamingrevies.blogspot.com/

[–] jejozi 13 years ago

There was another person pictured. And it looked like the real Black Dahlia.

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

[–] cherr 13 years ago

Yes it is the real picture of the Black Dahlia it was shown twice in the movie

[–] SimplyClassic 13 years ago

"I did all of my own hair and makeup."

** Key quote from Warwick when showing the film. **

That makeup case he had was definitely for someone that was/is a professional makeup artist.

[–] DMInfinity 13 years ago

As far as I could tell, we only see one guy in the scrapbook. The only explanation that makes sense to me is that Scrapbook Guy is a willing participant in Warwick's fantasy/roleplay. This is something they do somewhat frequently. He didn't capture him. He's not a victim.

So, Warwick's plan that night was to have Scrapbook Guy over for another session of pretend time. Prior to this, he's surfing the net on his laptop and sees John's photo on some news site. By total coincidence/fate John shows up first and Warwick, knowing this is a bad guy, decides to roll with it and dick with him. When John forces Warwick to call off the party he phones Scrapbook Guy and cancels the night's event. He lets John go in the morning knowing that a wanted fugitive isn't going to tell on him. Plus, it seemed like Warwick kind of respected John for the chess play.

I don't recall if the news report from the liquor store said that John was wanted for robbing a bank. If the media did know then Warwick knew the whole time John had the cash. If not, he found out anyways from the detective. Warwick knows John is going to find Simone. He follows him, takes the money, and lets John go again. At the end, Warwick invites the detective over because he has nothing to worry about. As far as Scrapbook Guy goes, no crime has been committed and John is never going to tell on him. All Warwick has to do is stash the scrapbook, which isn't illegal but still probably not something a guy in Warwick's position should have. He's not going to do anything to the detective. Just have him over, serve dinner, let him search the place (he'll find nothing incriminating), and send him on his way. The "red or white wine" question is a last wink to the audience just to show us one more time that, while not the serial murderer he seems throughout the film, he's still a screwed up, manipulative guy.

The only problem is the photo which the lab will find is real and prove Warwick knew John. But, seeing as how Warwick appears to have a pretty high ranking position on the force, and that he's obviously very smart and resourceful, it probably won't be too tough for him to find a way to make it go missing.

As far as Julia goes, she's either a real person that left Warwick or died and he keeps her memory alive through fantasy or she's completely imagined. I don't think it matters either way. It was just another device to help convey that Warwick has problems. None of the other guests actually exist. They're figments of Warwick's imagination that he conjures up to make the fantasy more real or whatever.

[–] mark6785 13 years ago

nice one, DM. best analsys so far

[–] Neo_v7 13 years ago

I just had a thought... maybe with Warwick being a police officer and having access to photographs of murder victims that the pictures in his scrapbook are from the office and not victims of his own crimes? the Black Dahlia photo being in there was odd and thinking about it now maybe Warwick just took those photos from work to scare his 'guests'?

Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken

[–] ginger-51 10 years ago

aaaah yes! I just watched this film and came here trying to see if anyone can help me fill in the blanks about that piece of the story. Your post makes the most sense to me--he created the scrapbook with photos from crime scenes, and uses it as another 'prop' to use to scare his guests, just like the makeup/fake blood and the fake knives and the video of cutting himself! With that theory, everything else falls into place--his conversation about how other countries have ways of showing criminals that they are serious, such as chopping off a hand or killing someone. And how the US is lacking in that way. And if he DID mail the photo of him and John to his colleague himself (I'm not sure whether he did or not, since I didn't notice whether John had pocketed the photo while he was at Warwick's house), he could have done it to lure him into coming over to his house, so he could do the same thing to him, maybe to get him to quit gambling and/or to scare him into backing off him. None of which negates the fact that he's clearly insane, BTW.

Thanks for sharing your insight. I enjoyed the film overall.
p.s. I do realize you wrote this post quite some time ago!

[–] chemisry1-1 13 years ago

I got the feeling Warick was involved in making films, which would explain the lavish house, masks, make-up kit, etc. When the neighbor comes to investigate John's actions in the pool, I believe Warwick explains the guy was really getting into character or something similar concerning his strange behavior. With this being said, is it not plausible that Warwick made the whole story up in his head. Afterall, he is out there, right? If this is the case, it would explain why he has never been caught for his crazy behavior. Also, what would be the probability of John picking Warwick's house to crash to begin with? It seems more believeable Warwick invites us into his mind for awhile where he is privy to the plotline, but is still working out the ending, which leaves the audience with different conclusions to draw from. I am just offering a different point of view for folks to consider here. Only the writer truly knows the intent...perhaps. LOL

[–] Dextrousleftie 13 years ago

I like DMs explanation. A schizophrenic like Warwick needs his fantasies to get through the day without making them realities. He obviously loves his job because he can live vicariously through the killers that he helps to catch. But that's not enough to keep his demons at bay, so he playacts out killing this guy and keeps a scrapbook that he can pore over later, and he can tell himself that the guy is really dead not just made up to look dead. And he DID call someone to cancel, one presumes a real person not one of his imaginary friends. All he had to do was get a hold of a homeless person who'd go along with his sick fantasies for a good bit of cash, or maybe somebody a bit twisted who gets off on being a 'victim' for Warwick over and over again. He knows that he has to keep himself corralled in some way or he'll end up in jail or a psych ward. But when John showed up, and he realized who he was, Warwick decided to paly his little game on him instead. Maybe not to find out where the money was per se - maybe he just couldn't help himself because he was in full 'fantasy mode' and needed his fix one way or another, and he knew a guy wanted for bank robbery wasn't going to tell on him to his fellow cops. As for the detective - I'm not sure if Warwick will kill him or not. It's hard to say ,as the guy is smart, a good cop, and suspicious of him. He might actually have to make him disappear this time.

If you like great gay romances, try http://www.dlsyaoi-polloi.com/
Free Stories!

[–] gingerybleau 13 years ago

Movie is vary complex. Heres my take. When john came to Warwicks house, warwic knew john was real,and was lying. Since Juliea is a figment of Warwicks imagination. Or Warwick thought it was a hallucination and played with it. But warwic offered him water or wine right at first so, he must of knew something wasn't up with john's story. So he took advantage of the opportunity to have a new dinner guest.
Now When john tells Warwick to shut the F up, and turns up the radio news, Warwic did look surprised as to who was really in his house. John said to Warwick that he would slit his throat and put him in a bath tube. Warwic kind of did that to john a little later.

A side note, Warwick did say to john that he had some old friends coming over for dinner. - He's been crazy for a long time, hence medication.

I agree with others that Warwic never killed anyone yet. He may be building up to it. Could of snagged homeless people, inviting the one to dinner to ovoid suspicion.

What gets me is why warwick took the money at the end. He gave John a speech about how you don't have to steal. And when Warwic was in the car with his detectives he seemed too passion-net about being a police officer. Him stealing the money from john was whey out of his character and is my biggest complaint.

[–] sandifay62 13 years ago

Stealing the money was out of his character? He kidnapped and tortured people. Stealing is the nicest crime he's committed and well within his hypocritical character. He lies a lot, too. Lol

Also, people that lead double lives often act against their public words and personas. I'm sure his lifestyle requires a lot of cash so he probably can never have too much extra cash. He might just be a greedy bastard as well.

I don't think Warwick is a killer. I think he just likes the torture and kidnapping. He's also too smart to mess up his world with the task of disposing bodies. He probably doesn't even like real blood or "nasty messes". His type of crimes depends on his victims not being believable and his colleagues not having anything to prove against him. Plus, he knows he has a nosy neighbor.

His "victims" are probably people that wondered by or paid; probably desperate people that were too freaked out or embarrassed to tell and he also probably paid some off. I also think that some of those pictures were probably from crime scenes.

As far as the dumping of his victims, I agree with the poster that said it was the final humiliation as well as letting John loose to find the money. Also if any of his victims went to the police, they'd have a hard time convincing them a crime had been committed with fake blood and makeup on their face and necks as well as probably still having alcohol and drugs in their system. They're disheveled, they have no ID, they're coming from a nice neighborhood.

I think he already knew that the guy was a suspect but may not have known exactly what he looked like and ther truth was revealed by John's reaction to the radio. but with Warwick being a lieutenant, he probably knew everything about the case as it came up. Remeber we only see Warick's actions from John's point of view as he drifted in and out of being drugged. Warwick could've taken calls and texts in between.

[–] gingerybleau 13 years ago

"Also, people that lead double lives often act against their public words and personas. I'm sure his lifestyle requires a lot of cash so he probably can never have too much extra cash. He might just be a greedy bastard as well. "

I never thought of it that way. Now I understand.

[–] Neo_v7 13 years ago

I wonder if he ever called anyone to cancel as remember he 'called' the girl in australia and left a message on her answering machine?

Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken

[–] mark11111 13 years ago

If you read the interview with the director (link below), he clearly states this that implys he did not kill anyone.

NT: Warwick is all about fabrication. But by the end of the movie that way of behaving isn’t going to be enough. Structurally, the film concludes at the end of one chapter of Warwick’s life and asks the viewer to imagine the beginning of the next chapter. A darker Warwick is about to appear.

http://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/interview-nick-tomnay-perfect-host/

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] writetohugh 13 years ago

I think all the people Warwick imagined were real people who abandoned him as he started to have mental problems, and this caused him to totally flip out. At one poitn he says as much (something about them all making up excuses).

I agree that it seems that Warwick hadn't killed before and that maybe he was building up to it, but is it just me or was the handwriting on the letter given to the detective at the end, Warwicks handwriting? It seemed to be the same scrawl. Maybe he just wanted to be caught?

[–] Neo_v7 13 years ago

I dont think the writing was his, i remember John secretly taking the polariod from the sofa while Warwick wasnt looking.. but then he was drugged after that so Warwick could have taken it back before dumping him on the rubbish.. maybe he posted the photo to the other cop because he wanted a real guest and to go the last step and kill someone for real?

Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken

[–] Bastiaan09 13 years ago

I agree that the imagined people were people Warwick, at some point, came in contact with or even were friends. The same with Julia, she probably was his girlfriend who left him (or died) and i have the feeling his situation detoriated after that.

We have a few clues for this, one of then is that Warwick was visiously annoyed with the fact his guests were late. It's not uncommen for people with borderline (or full out schizofrenia) to estrange himself from their social connections with irrational behavior.

I even believe Warwick did believe John was friend of Julia. Why underline the fact Warwick didn't own a TV (so he was not informed about news?)

[–] jisrael180 13 years ago

His getting John to give him the money was -luck-. He didn't know John would be on the lower level, that the other cops wouldn't get to him first, that John wouldn't have failed to get the money from his ex and that John would choose to go after his ex. By allowing him to live, he risked John being arrested and then telling the police about everything that had happened to him, as well as getting no money that he was in no way desperate to get (guy was doing pretty well for himself).

The fake blade that he used for his home movie, with fake blood, the fake cuts he gave John, etc., were all very well done - no one does that good a make up job "on the fly" upon figuring out that he doesn't want to actually kill his victims.

Warwick is mentally ill, but he is somewhat self aware and aware that he wants to act out a torture fantasy but doesn't actually want to do it. His previous victims were faked. He has likely never killed a person in his entire career.

Odds are even better that the other "victims" were consensual - persons he found on Craigslist with submission fantasies.

John could have easily been his first nonconsenting torture "player."

Also - I would say that he probably does have a bit of a split personality going on. His writing notes to himself as his friend Julia required him to put his mind into that of Julia's. He would eat his "guests" food, and his personality seemed to shift dramatically when he was in "cop mode." He was short tempered, less sympathetic, impatient. When at home he was calm and caring even when dealing with someone he was torturing.

He was likely the victim of some kind of torture when he was developing, which has led him to want to take "control" of other people. He however doesn't want to own his behavior, so he creates a personality that he views as drastically different.

I think the whole money thing was just him being an opportunist. He is obviously doing well for himself, he didn't want to have John arrested and did not want to take a life, so he thought, "*beep*, I'll let him go... but I should get SOMETHING for my trouble."

Now, with the detective at the end, he may have to kill him for real, as he is sort of without options. After allowing himself to finally be forced to take that step from pretend killer to actual killer, he may grow addicted and become a serial killer. He is more insane than he is calculated though, so I do think if he goes down that road, it won't be long until he is caught.

The detective goes home, tells his wife that he is going to his chiefs house to question him about a photo he'd been sent. He shows her the photo - he doesn't return home the next day, the police investigate, the last person that he supposedly met was Warwick, Warwick gets investigated - and bam. He's caught.

J.