MovieChat Forums > The Tortured (2012) Discussion > It WAS the killer they were torturing. I...

It WAS the killer they were torturing. I'll explain.

posted 11 years ago by watcher101
18 replies | jump to latest

Many people think that the couple had gotten the wrong man when it's revealed that there were two convicts, but that's wrong. The whole thing is actually meant to a play on the audience's psyche. Throughout the whole movie, we think that the couple is getting their revenge on their son, and as sick as the torture is, we find it justified. At the very end, it reveals that there were 2 convicts, and we're meant to believe that it was a twist and that the couple had made a mistake, making us horrified at how we thought of the situation. We're meant to be shocked and appalled at how we as an audience were supporting the couple, only to find out that it wasn't the killer, since throughout all the pain we keep thinking "he deserves it", only to find out that we were wrong. But the suicide note shows us that he WAS the killer all along, and we were just meant to think that it was a mistake, allowing us to breath a sigh of relief that the wrong man wasn't tortured after all. What we thought was a twist, wasn't actually a twist, just something to make us panic.

I actually saw something like this in another movie, where the same thing happened, only it actually was a innocent man. This movie did something similar, but didn't follow through with the twist, revealing it to be an attempt to fool the audience. The point is to also make us wonder who the real monsters were when the "justified" torture was questioned at the possibility that they got the wrong man. Even after it's revealed that it was the killer they were torturing, we're still left with the uneasy feeling of the possibility that it could have been a innocent man they had tortured, though it also gives us a feeling of relief that it wasn't. That's the beauty and creativity of the film that many people seem to have missed.

[–] watcher101 11 years ago

Oops, now this is embarrassing. I went and got the two movies mixed up. It's been a while since I saw them and I confused which movie was which.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] balducci2 11 years ago

You really need to rewatch the end of the movie.

Kozlowski heavily bandaged his left leg with white tape. The fellow hanging has his right leg lightly bandaged with a coloured cloth. They were not the same guy.

The fellow captured in the woods had his face in perfectly good condition - basically clean and uncut and not bloodied. The fellow being tortured has his face cut up and bloodied. So did the fellow who hung himself.

The fellow who hung himself said in his note "I fully deserve what you were about to do to me" and "But I can't take any more of the torture". Got it? The guy who hung himself was the one being tortured.

Ergo, the fellow who hung himself was clearly Patrick Galligan. He was innocent of the kidnapping and murder. BUT he had LOST HIS MEMORY and had come to believe what the couple had been telling him about his abducting and killing their son.

He believed he committed the crimes they accused him of and - because he was a decent guy (at least a not a kidnapper, torturer, and child-killer) - he could not live with what he was led to believe he had done.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] oocpaka 11 years ago

Sorry to break it to ya, but he was not the killer. Please watch again and pay closer attention...

[–] fifthfreedom 10 years ago

Just wanted to comment on one thing. You said "Throughout the whole movie, we think that the couple is getting their revenge on their son, and as sick as the torture is, we find it justified.".

I never found the torture justified. You have a sick mind if you think torture is justice. I'd kill the guy myself, but I would not torture him. I wouldn't torture Hitler or Osama Bin Laden. In my mind, there is no atrocity great enough to justify torture.

[–] JackDnCoke 10 years ago

Then you must not have a family.

[–] fifthfreedom 10 years ago

Torture only serves to satisfy a man's bloodlust. There's no justice in it. You aren't teaching your victim anything. You aren't bringing anybody back to life. You aren't righting any wrongs. There is nothing to be gained from it.

A man with any measure of empathy couldn't torture another man without placing themselves in his shoes, and imagining the pain he must be feeling. That is the basis of morality. I couldn't bring myself to torture a man while at the same time, imagining the same thing being done to me. It wouldn't be possible.

I have a family that I love very much, more than I love myself, and I would kill to protect, or even avenge them if necessary, but I would never torture anybody. I believe in the concept of righteous anger. Sometimes, it isn't a sin to kill a man. If you don't see the difference between that and gaining some sort of sick sadistic satisfaction from watching somebody suffer, something inside you is broken.

I was with the wife when she wanted to kill him, completely.

[–] Carly_Corinthos1971 10 years ago

If someone tortured and killed my daughter I would do much sicker things than the couple in this movie did. Perhaps there is something broken inside me and the other poster but there are things in life that can break you.

"I love Sonny and Sonny loves me"-Carly Corinthos

[–] aprince539 10 years ago

Yo might have been thinking of the film Prisoners in which the torture was only justified because the father was trying to find out where the children were before they could be killed,and he was torturing one of the killers to find out.

[–] PenguinCat 9 years ago

I couldn't do it either. I can't even kill a mosquito off of my leg without feeling guilty. I couldn't have an abortion either. I have been in "almost" fist fights and couldn't even do that. I just can't hurt another being without guilt.

I would want to though.

★

[–] jmaybay 10 years ago

I have a family, AND throughout this movie I still never went. "Well he deserves it" I just went O.O ooooh. Damn.

I wonder if theyll read this & say that awkward moment when I wasted my life readin a signature. :\

[–] smakar 10 years ago

I must have a sick mind, because one of my favorite scenes of ALL time is in Dirty Harry - when Harry (Eastwood) is grinding is foot on the Killer's (Robinson) gun-shot wound. Of course, he did this to find out where the Killer had buried the young girl, who still had a chance of being alive.

In a situation like this, where an innocent's life is at stake, I feel torture is justified 110%.

I do not have children, but if someone were to murder my wife, where intentional pain was inflicted (not an accidental gun-shot wound, but with torture involved), I would have no compunction to inflict equal pain on that individual. And that extends to her being raped, also - in many ways rape is worse because the victim must live the remainder of her life with physical, emotional, and mental scars.

To borrow a quote from The Wrath Of Kahn: "The need of the many outweigh the need of the few, or the one".

[–] fifthfreedom 8 years ago

Any expert will tell you torture does not work as a method of gathering information. James Mattis, our current Defense Secretary, once said "I've always found, give me a pack of cigarettes and a couple of beers and I do better with that than I do with torture." This is a 4 star general, folks. The carrot works better than the stick. There is NEVER, NEVER a good reason to torture a man.

[–] rainybear 10 years ago

How about you delete your post instead of saying I'm sorry?

[–] deadbodieseverywhere17 10 years ago

They had the right man. He was faking about the memory loss. Unless I rewatch it and hear them say Ben's name in front of him before asking, then it at very clear. Though I can't see rewatching it. Average movie.

I'm not so sure this is, structurally speaking, such a good time for your, uh, buddies to drop in.

[–] audiopinions 10 years ago

Come on. The movie goes out of its way to show you they had the wrong guy.

-He knew Ben's name because they said it in front of him.
-He really did have memory loss. He awoke in a prison jumpsuit, and the couple repeatedly told him he killed their son. He writes the note because he believe this to be the true story of his past, even if he himself can't remember it.
-It SHOWS the actual killer getting away.

[–] alex-tinker81 10 years ago

Obviously the point of the ending and the information we are given about the second prisoner is to show that the couple got the wrong man. The writers have to send some sort of moral message about torture and this was how they did it. Even people who think that torturing a child murderer is justified have to be left with a bad feeling at the end of the movie. It bridges the gaps between the viewers: we all feel bad for the man who hanged himself because he was not the one who murdered the boy. All the torture and all the pain was inherently for no reason because it was inflicted on the wrong person. So, the husband and wife lose their sense of satisfaction in delivering 'justice' and they have become no better than the man they were targeting. They senselessly tortured another human being and now they'll go to prison for it. Ironically, they'll probably receive a sentence similar to the one that the real murderer will serve.