rdescartes101 The players, the family, the business men, the politicians, the kidnappers, the police, the solicitor and of course, the victim. All with agendas, all seeking resolution and some seeking personal gain. Was the kidnapping the sole motivation? Was the avarice and greed of the business associates a prime motive? Were the family really the ideal family unit?Ans, none of the questions were answered. The wife's disdain for the apartment, the police motivation for showing it to her, all contribute to an ending that seeks more answers.The collapse of the kidnapping, Stan's business position, the police case and the kidnappers' demands. If it was his own doing would the "calypso" note have appeared? For the French, the affairs of the heart are common place. the younger daughter's manner through out the episode. Did the family love the man or the riches and life style? The complex but seemingly simple plot lines gave way to a multitude of questions and who would most benefit from the escapade? Who was responsible?

Rogermex I think some of my good friends here with the other reviews need to watch the film again. Some, not all.Yes, it's a somewhat slow and quiet film, beautifully shot and acted. Though supposedly of some sort of "thriller" genre it is actually a "thrillingly" excellent character study. Not the sort of example of humanity that is gratifying to see however.The main character's kidnapping and two months in captive isolation are essentially a metaphor for his own solitary confinement in his cold narcissism. He is no less his own prisoner than if he had contrived the kidnapping himself, as the police have reason to suspect.When his wife, and daughters, seek some sort of contact and contrition from him for the fact that his betrayals are now a matter of public disgrace, he quite coldly declares that it is himself alone who deserves pity and solace, and that he will explain to no one. His faithful dog is treated with more affection and care.You would naively think that his "ordeal" would effect some sort of transformation of his personality. Sorry, personalities, especially this kind, do not change so easily. He loses one of his fingers, but otherwise is intact. (Want some cheap symbolism? The finger is gone, but he easily lights up that big cigar of self-indulgence.) He knows, and we know, that the kidnappers have left him with a means not just to satisfy them with his money, but to "do the right thing" in preventing the further violent mayhem they threaten. Innocents will be killed at random. He does have the money: his shares of the company have been sold and his lawyer congratulates him for how extremely wealthy he still is. The kidnappers want their full 50 million.The film ends perfectly, I think. He sits alone in his palatial room on a regal chair, with his cigar. His wife is divorcing him, his daughters have been distanced by his coldness and empty claim of love. The "Calypso" message arrives. He sits. My understanding of his character, as it has been portrayed so consistently, is that he thinks to himself something like "that is no concern of mine."

damian5000 It would be difficult to find anything to change about this film. Often I'll watch a film and wonder how the heck could a film costing millions to make put in something so stupid. With this movie, it seemed almost perfect.I really disliked the daughters and mother after he got home. The guy soaking in the tub after 2 months being held captive and losing his finger and his wife coming in and telling him " we suffered too!!! do you know what we went through?!!!!". Really makes you want to slap the stupid out of her.To the guy wondering if he was going to kill himself. Absolutely no way. Did you miss the part at the end where his attorney told him several times how rich he was. The guy didn't GIVE his stock to the company...He SOLD the stock to them. So he surely could still pay the ransom.Whether he paid the ransom or not, and if he did pay it, did that leave him completely broke? ....is unknown..But, I think the ransom amount (20million) to be paid at "calypso" was exactly how much he was worth...The end point is that he basically lost everything - his job, his wife, his reputation...and assuming he paid the ransom - his wealth as well... So he was left with nothing other than himself alive...And probably feeling quite lucky to have that. It's all we really ever have for sure until we die...All the other stuff is just a bonus.

Frederick Malouf Yes, it is a great film. Very interesting, and solid characters. I can't understand how someone opined that he felt no identity with any characters and feels shortchanged that the ending was not complete. Hell if I can understand people who write their comments like their opinion rules and nothing else matters.Anyway, I was looking for some kid of conspiracy, something conclusive, but the director left something else and I have to deal with that.So, I have a question; do you think he is intending to commit suicide, or let the chips fall as they will as he can't pay the kidnappers since he relinquished all control of his funds and has nothing (am I right about this?).I think, in a more normal film, he would commit suicide, as dealing with the public with anything that will happen will be a disaster. I do think that is what he is going to do, as that is the only way he could be remembered as honourable. Or he could be thinking of a plan to return to the head of the company by blaming the board for what they did, but I do not think that would work. What do you all think?