Not gonna bother spoilering anything because if you're in this topic, seen all the black bars in the OP, and still continue reading, then you deserve to be spoiled.
But anyway, yeah, I agree that killing Perlman was kinda pointless. I mean, it could be a way of saying, "You knew this was going on, but did nothing to stop it? You deserve to die."
As for sticking it to the guy in charge of the game, he accomplished nothing. If anything, by not simply taking the money and continuing on with his life, he turned himself into a liability. He has zero winnings and full knowledge of the game. What's to stop him from spilling his guts (hehe) to the police or newspaper or somebody? He's got nothing to lose.
So the most likely scenario is that the guys in charge of the game will just have Elliot killed. Boy, he sure showed them!
Although the reason Elliot shot Perlman in the end was probably to give the audience a sense of justice. Unfortunately, it was poorly executed and served only to make the movie more irrational. I think the director also wanted to hammer home how badly the game destroyed Elliot. He did all that for nothing except grief, pain, and suffering; however, it was lazy writing to accomplish this the way they did.
reply
share
tripper511
10 years ago
The ending bothered me too. I didn't feel very satisfied with Perlman being shot since nothing changed except losing the money. On one hand I can see the main character showing that he didn't let the game turn him into a monster, so he proved he's not a monster by committing another murder? I don't know I think I just confused myself more by writing that.
I also wish we got to see him get some revenge on his boss. That guy was a dick. I didn't really care about him killing the bully and Perlman because they didn't have enough character development to make me hate them and then enjoy their death.
reply
share