yes

>>217784122
Checked

>>217783840
He did kill them all it's a criticism of capitalism. We have this conversation everytime anon when will you get it.

>>217784268
Why would the lawyer at the end pour cold water on it if the ending murders were real? I think, at least in the book, he really killed and tortured some people, but near the end its loosey goosey and you are forced to reconsider how much of it was real. At least less than 100% of it was real

>>217783840
He killed them all but because everybody in this hellish world is completely soulless and indistinguishable from each other, nobody is able or willing to pin it on him because they keep confusing each other.
>gets an alibi because people confused him for some other dude going too see a play the night he killed Paul
>lawyer thinks Paul really isn't dead because they confused another guy in London for him
And the moment he does get caught by the real estate agent, she says nothing and tells him to leave because she wants to cover it up as well so the property doesn't lose its value.

>>217783840
yes

Still relevant 35 years later /lit/

>>217783840
All 3 answers of
>yes
>no
and
>some of them
Are excellent ways to interpret it. A great and rare example of an ambiguous ending that works in all ways.

>>217784268
movie /= the book

director even admitted she failed to adapt the novel. he didn't kill anyone it was all in his head

I think some of them he killed.

>>217783840
BEE wrote 3 versions of the book: one where the detective knew, another where the detective was not sure, and one other where the detective was oblivious