Wrong Movie!

totally agree, i liked the concept but the movie was big disappointment

Haha. I have to agree with most of the things you listed here. They knew the transport van got stolen. When the police found the van, why didn't they try to find out who "comendeered" it? Like you said, the husband's prints were all over it. Also, Kozlowski saw the husband. Wouldn't he tell the police that it was him who stole the van? And that key hanging right above the victim ticked me off, too. I mean, seriously, what was the point of that? I don't even want to call it cliche. It was waaaay too convenient even for a "cliche" plot device.

I also found it quite hard to believe that the parents weren't able to realize that they had the wrong guy. The looked at the man trial after trial, why weren't they able to recognize him?

The only thing that I liked about the movie was the victim ("the tortured"). The guy was suffering from amnesia after the crash, so he just believed everything the parents accused him of...so he killed himself because he "agreed" he was a monster. It was a simple twist, but I liked it. Doesn't mean I liked how it was used in this movie though, or that I liked the rest of the movie.

The movie had so many problems. For a normal couple torturing a human being for the first time, they seemed too lax for me. The husband even hung a key over the victim, for pete's sake, "in case he needed to go to the bathroom."

Are you kidding me? Although it might be a stretch, the whole reasoning was there.

When he jumped in the van for the first time and said "buckle up", he looked at the killer square on the face. He did not know there was someone else in the van and he quickly pulled away. They got into the accident and they went to the guy who they thought was the killer. They assumed it was him because a) they *did* have similar features (as the flashback scene shows) and b) his face was all bloodied and borken up by the crash.

Again, while it was a stretch, that is how they supposedly did not recognize him. It makes sense and is not too hard to believe.

As for the amnesia, he had it. He was the fraud guy and not the killer. He didn't know what to tell them. They, again towards the end, lead you to believe that he probably heard her say the sons name at one point and instead of getting tortured, he blurted out the name because they would have stopped there on the spot. He didn't know what else to tell them other than that since he did not know.

"The parents' whole plan and execution was so cliche!
Burn the transport van, it got the dad's print and blood. "

Sure, that makes sense. But it was in broad daylight and they were already running a big risk getting caught as it is. Let alone set up a fire and possible explosion. They thought fast and did what they had to do. Obviously not the best choice was made, but they had to make it.

"Rent or procure a real safe place!!! "

A house that had its owners die almost a year ago and one that she is in charge selling that is secluded far out in the woods sounds like one of the safest places they could have chosen.

"Demobilized the victim, cut the Achilles hill or something, so he can't run. "

I guess. They thought he was securely locked up. Stupid and cliche oversight, yes, but still plausible.

"Silence him, cut the tongue or vocal cord or something. "

Cutting out his tongue would probably cause way too much bleeding. Slicing his vocal cord might have worked, but they probably wanted to hear his pain at points as well.

"Hanging the key right there was so cliche. "

Again, I might be inclined to agree with you, but I can also see it as a form of torture itself. Basically giving the guy some hope that he might have a chance. Only to have that crushed over and over. But he did get out so yes, it was rather stupid.

"Stop when u got a flat-line, the machine is there for that EXACT reason! "

Uhh, this doesn't make sense. So what if they killed him? I mean, I know they wanted to keep him alive, but if they killed them by getting too carried away, which is exactly what happened, then oh well. They revived him because they wanted more, not because they made some grave mistake.

While I did not like the movie for other reasons than you list, I don't find any of your arguments really that valid. It seems like you even missed some plot points. Funny because this movie all but recites to you exactly what is happening. Try again.

For relaxing times, make it Suntory time.

What they've desperately tried to do, is to construct a plot around the idea that revenge is wrong.
But we are talking about a special kind of revenge here. A child was murdered. And of course his parents would have memorized every angle of their son's killer's face. There is no way they would have mistaken him for another person.
So what we have here is that:
1. They did not recognize their son's killer.
2. They did not see that there was another prisoner in the car even though they were watching the whole scene from the beginning.
3. The other prisoner whose crime was tax evasion was in the same car with a child murderer.
4. He looked much like the killer.
5. There had to be an accident because if not, they would have got the right guy.
6. Not only there was an accident but one prisoner was thrown outside the car by the crash, while the other remained inside.
7. The guy who remained inside was...hey! the killer! If not, they would have got the right guy again.
8. The guy had a memory loss! How convenient, I must agree with the actress.
9. They said nothing about the other prisoner until the very end!
10. He spoke their son's name at the right time so that they tortured him some more.
Well, if you have to force something to come out the way you wish, you make mistakes like this. I prefer the classic revenge movies that at least are honest about it.

[deleted]