MovieChat Forums > After.Life (2009) Discussion > Everyone's Missed The Point

Everyone's Missed The Point


I Can't believe that everyone's missed the point in this movie

She was dead, Liam Neeson wasn't a killer, he really could talk to the dead

He kept photo's of the corpses to remind himself of the people he'd helped, not the people he'd murdered.

The boy's mother was also obviously dead, remember when he told the boy that the first person he talked to, after they'd died, was his mother - he and the boy shared the same gift. The boy could also see the dead chick and even buried it.

The whole film was about him trying to help her accept her death

reply

I disagree your comment...

If she was dead,why Liam Neeson druged her,wipe the mirror , etc.



He kept lots of photo means he thought they don't respect their life.

But they didn't,they only get lost.

reply

what about the wound on Anna's forehead, it heals by the end of the movie, we do not see the stitches being removed either. If she was dead the gash would not have healed.

reply

what about the wound on Anna's forehead, it heals by the end of the movie, we do not see the stitches being removed either. If she was dead the gash would not have healed.


Although I definitely agree with you that she is alive, I don't think the appearance of her head wound is evidence of it. I think he finished stitching it together to bring the edges in closer contact, and then used the wax filler/spackle/concealer and makeup coverage to give it the appearance that it had by the end of the movie. Remember, funeral directors have a lot of experience in restoring far worse trauma than what Anna had, and she had already been prepared for the viewing, so it was his duty to fill that in and cover it to the best of his artistic ability. And anyone who has ever dealt with relatively penetrating wounds like that knows they could NEVER appreciably heal that much in only a couple of days anyway, so it would have been very unrealistic of the director to use that as a gauge of her being alive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k62kc07m1Dc

reply

Morticians use a type of putty to cover up gashes, bullet holes, etc. In most instances they can smooth over any blemish.

reply

I had a friend in my youth who loved making freak scenes during halloween. He used something called mortician's wax to make his hand look like it was caught in a blender. He freaked people out left and right, because it looked so real. It looked so gruesome, but it was fake as hell. He was a young kid doing this. Imagine what an adult mortician, who really preps dead bodies for funerals, can do. Imagine a gruesome car accident, where a person is almost beheaded. He could, with all the tools of the trade, make the head look good as new, with no traumatic injury.

reply

Yeah, she's NOT dead. Some people Liam Neeson's character kills, and others he doesn't, as indicated by whether or not their eyes are open in photos he takes.

http://shareddarkness.com/2010/07/29/afterlife-bluray.aspx

^ As this review invaluably points out, the writer-director herself addresses these questions/issues in the movie's audio commentary and bonus special features.

reply

Regardless of the director's views, what's important is what in the movie itself, and the movie is contradictory. There's strong evidence that she was alive, but there's also strong evidence that there's supernatural stuff going on. The movie, to succeed, either needed to pick a side or to be ambiguous, but ambiguous and contradictory are not the same.

reply

an important distinction that is well pointed out.

reply

[deleted]

Good point. People often rely on what the director said or apparently "intended" or what was in a novel or other source, but none of that matters. If the movie actually conveys something other than what was intended or leaves details out that can be found in an outside source, then those elements are irrelevant. The movie can only be judged on what is actually in it. When you rely on the director's explanation for what's in a movie, you are succumbing to something called the "intentional fallacy." Directors often fail to achieve what they want, and sometimes they unwittingly create the exact opposite of their intended meaning. A solid interpretation based on the material itself is always more relevant than whatever authors tell you. Besides you should never trust them anyway because they lie about their work all the time.

reply

you are correct she is not dead and because she is alive this movie is complete and utter *beep* like at the end when he could of saved her but liam nieson character tells him to go save her knowing he was drunk and would get in a wreck hes a horrible person and needed to be stopped. thats why this movie sucks not satisfying at all. i want to sue the writer of it i hate this movie

reply

[deleted]

The point about his mom is a good one, I'd forgotten about that. I wonder if they did put her in there is a sort of clue, or to just make his life seem weird. But remember in the beginning when he said the chick was dead, anna picked it up and it very obviously was not dead.

reply

Just proves a point. Everyone sees something different? If she was dead what about the breath on the mirror? Did you think dead people breathe?
So all these people end up in car crashes with a white van and no one notices?

Lost my attention at about 20 minutes. Was she really dead? Dunno, don't care.

reply

I was wondering about the chick at first, and thought that maybe it was dead, and since she's a teacher she had lied to him so he wouldn't be upset, like when your a kid and your parents tell you that someone went on vacation when they died, or they go buy you a new goldfish when yours died...mine didn't...but it might have been nice lol

Okay...but overall I liked the movie...but...and warning SPOIL ALERT...I feel that the ending should have been different. I think that Ricci should have actually been dead, I think it would have had more of a message then just that there are crazy people out there who can do horrible things to innocent people. I think that if they had made her dead, then after Long's accident they could have had him go and dig her up, and they could have been together...and maybe the last scene could have just shown him dead, and then them walking away together...more of a ghost story, with a message that way, instead of a creepy horror flick. I mean if Neeson wanted people to realize how important they're life was, he could have just put them through all of it and then let them go...he gave her a chance...but not much of one...oh well, write comments people so I can get someone else's opinion.

reply

@mannegrace
Thats such a sappy cliche ending. I thought this movie was pretty decent, especially for a straight-to-DVD...an ending like that and I would have thought this film sucked.

reply

I would've liked to have seen Long save Ricci in the end. But it wasn't a love story, per say. Ricci wouldn't admit she loved him.

reply

Per se... not "per say". It's Latin for "by itself".

"I am the equal and opposite reaction!" -Unknowntyper-

reply

With Jack and his mother, she sat on the couch not doing much with her life like a corpse, it probably foreshadows that he will kill her the same way as Eliot probably did to his own mother since Jack becomes his apprentice.

reply

Christina Ricci' character Anna is not dead, she is drugged by Liam Neesons Character Eliot and burried alive at the end of the movie.

First Clue:
You see the white van honking at Anna's car right before the accident that causes her "death" and later in the movie you see Eliot driving the same car when Anna steals his keys.


Most revealing Clue:
Here's the dialogue between Justin Long's character Paul & the Poilce Chief Tom

Paul: Tom, she's not dead!
Tom:Here's the coroner's report.

Paul: The paramedics phoned it in.

Paul: They only checked for eye dilation and pulse.

Paul: The doctor signed the death certificate without seeing the body.

Tom: So?
Paul: So there was no EEG, nothing.

Paul: He could have drugged her and ...
Tom: ... Drugged her?

Paul: Yes!
Asian Cop: Actually, Chief,um, there are drugs like that.

Paul: Yes.

Asian Cop: Hydronium bromide,total paralysis within seconds, heartbeat slows to almost nothing.
Paul: Thank you. Tom, listen.....

Near the end of the movie..

Then we see a clear view of the label on the phial of Hydronium Bromide that Liam Neeson's character Eliot is forcefully injecting into Anna's neck when she see's her breath condense on the surface of the small mirror and realises that Eliot has tricked her into believing she is dead.

He keeps drugging her through out the movie claiming that its good for delaying rigor mortis. He does this for the first time right before Anna's mom shows up to see her.

He is also shown adjusting the thermostat all the time in the movie.

Obvious Clue:
He confesses his crime to the little boy jack when he is digging Anna's grave...

Eliot[: It's for ...
jack: ... Ms. Taylor?

Eliot: Exactly. For Anna.

Eliot: She belongs here.
Jack: Because she's dead?

Eliot: No, because there's no life left in her.

Jack:What do you mean?
Eliot:- Don't you see?

Eliot:I'm the only one that can see all these corpses wandering around aimlessly. All they do is piss and *beep* us with their stench, doing nothing with their lives, taking the air away from those that actually want to live. I have to bury them all. I have no choice. Now there's two of us.



Another Clue:
Later Jack buries his chick alive in just the way Anna is buried alive by Eliot.

Clue in the Climax:
In the end at the funeral party when Eliot notices Paul drowning himself in booze, he provokes Paul to go rescue Anna....while Paul is driving drunk with blurry vission ...there is a vortex of bright light ... then we see the white van waiting by the road just as the ambulance drives by..and this time we are shown little Jack sitting next to Eliot.... and finally when Paul lying in the funeral home, we see the budding psychopath Jack handing out that piercing rod to Eliot, who then stabs Paul....


Eliot is a psychopath... and Jack is following fast in his footsteps.




The more people I know the more I love my dog .

reply

"Eliot is a psychopath... and Jack is following fast in his footsteps."

Exactly. All the stuff they put in there to make you question if he was a crazy killer was there for just that reason - to make you wonder if he really could talk to dead people. Much of it was illogical and misleading, but there you have it. She was alive, Elliot killed her, and her boyfriend.

Sorry amsoftware but the facts of the movie are far more in favor of this being what really happened than your interpretation.

reply

The OP missed the point.

She was def alive, its just like saw.

Anna was dead in a sense because she was just walking through her day like a zombie, she didnt know one day from the other. HE was trying to make them realize they are not living life.

He would have let her go if she saw the light but she didnt. He even said you are all the same, you dont fear death you fear life.

The point of the movie was to not accept death, that is everything she kept insisting she was a live he would stop his work on her.

reply

Yes! This was my take, as well, that she could have gone free if she'd realized what he wanted her to realize about living life.

Also, something else I haven't seen pointed out yet is that we never saw him actually embalm her. He stitched her wound, dyed her hair and put on her makeup/dress, but never embalmed her. With Paul, it was the very first thing he did. Since this was missing with her, I take that to mean she was alive until he buried her.

reply

ROLFMAO - Wow, this is eerie. I read this entire thing and got down to this part before realizing I was the original poster...! LOL.

After just watching the movie, and then reading everything that is said, I disagree with myself. What was I thinking?

Granted, I was most likely stoned when I wrote the original post and everything seems to make perfect sense when I'm stoned!

reply

Also, if she was dead and had no pulse as Eliot claimed then the drug would have no way to circulate in her body.

reply

C'mon, that one's waaaaaay to smart!! LOLLL xDD :-P

reply

Also, if she was really dead, would Eliot be so freaked out when he noticed that his keys were missing when he was at the gas station?

With my feet upon the ground I lose myself between the sounds

reply

And another thing, the most obvious clue of all.... very rarely do the dead walk about, leaving their breath on mirrors. IF she were dead, and he could talk to her, interact with her on some level, she would have been moving around as a ghost, whilest still on the table, not like in the movie, where she got off the table, and the table was empty. So, was she a zombie??!!

reply

That could be because if the soul went wandering, she would have no one to help her find peace - and he won't allow for that to happen, because he cares.

That said, I'm convinced she was alive the whole time.

reply

I struggled with the idea that Anna might still be alive but then dismissed it, then it came up again, but then again I dismissed it. Why? Well it seemed like an awful lot of trouble for a serial killer to go through just to off someone. And was everyone he processed still alive? If so, then how? The medical examiner would have to be in on it, sending him bodies that had not be autopsied (Anna had no autopsy incisions).

Also, when she 'awoke' in the funeral home, the undertaker says "you've already begun to decompose". Yet he never once started the embalming process. Never drained her blood. Nothing that would be done right away (as Stephen King pointed out in one of his books, if you don't embalm the body within a certain time frame it's pointless). So she sat, or laid there, for 3-4 days without being embalmed! If dead for certain she'd have begun to stink! Note that when Paul her fiancee was wheeled in the first thing done was to begin the embalming process (the long needle which begins draining the blood and then replacing it with formaldehyde).

Anyway. I enjoyed it while watching it but now so many questions about what really was going on have given me a headache about it!!

reply

No everyone he processed was not alive. The clue to this (as the director confirms in the special features of the dvd) is in the end when they do a wide shot of all the pictures on his wall. Some of the people have closed eyes and some open. The ones with open eyes were alive, and those with closed were truly dead.

reply

Thanks for that. Wasn't quite sure if he'd killed them all or not :)

~~~I know I'm good for something... just don't what it is {yet}~~~

reply

One of the pictures were of the little boy .. I saw it twice .

"A man that wouldn't cheat for a poke don't want one bad enough".



reply

She must have been alive. She was dreaming!! Having nightmares! Truly just fooled by the sick serial killer..

But then again.. When shy was on the phone with her boyfriend.. He didn't understand her. While we heard that she was talking, he just heard some noises.. How to explain that?

reply

There could be countless reasons. Bad reception, the old telephone was broken, she was to weak to speak loudly, the telephone was "neatly prepped" (after all, he had his very own "telephone room" with it placed in the dead center).

Or he had an IPhone 4 and gripped it too hard ;)

reply

quite the coherent subject, we have here :P

Those people are kidding themselves if they think she was "dead" all along. If that were the case, this plot... no... this entire movie would have been pointless.

There have been abundant amount of clues & hints for the audience to figure out themselves that she was alive - which have been explained and stated on this thread countless number of times.

Regarding the scene where Eliot shows Anna the mirror, and she freaks out because it looks like a corpse: With the combination of bad lighting, professional face make-up from Deacon, chilled living conditions + heavy dosage of drugs... one can definitely expect to look as pale and resemble a drug-fiend type similarity as Anna did. Either that or that Mirror must of been some state of the art illusionary type of glass material that Deacon extensively designed and manufactured himself -_-

And honestly, you think a person like Deacon would be getting all cautiously paranoid and what-not upon finding out that Anna had his keys? Sure... she had quite a bit of chances to escape, but presumably, either the drugs kicked in and effected her senses quite a bit or she basically didn't care for living anymore. 2 more clues that i can prove this is #1)When Anna asked Deacon if Paul 'cried' when he came and tried to visit her..and when Deacon said "no" you can instantly tell Deacon was a cold-hearted evil psychopathic s.o.b who obviously wanted to wrap up his business as quickly as possible. #2) The scene where Paul Rushed into the Morgue to get to see Anna; she was fully aware and conscience, but.. wanted to except her inevitable fate since Liam Neeson was quite persuasive to Anna in the beginning. So she basically didn't care anymore and this part probably makes people doubt her dead/alive status.

There are so much implifications throughout the movie that basically is just handed out to you that implies that she was alive. Just re-watch the movie, I'm 100% sure you'll then agree that she was always alive.

reply

I'm convinced she was alive the whole time, but just to play the Devil's advocate: The reason why Deacon said that Paul hadn't cried could be that he believed that that might help Anna let go.

reply

Key phrase is *serial killer*. They tend to off people in unorthodox/elaborate ways.

reply

You're thinking most places have a coroner's department with professionally trained medical examiners/pathologists like on Law & Order or, older, Quincy.

In fact, it's only major cities that have this sort of thing. In most small towns, the sheriff is the coroner and funeral directors are appointed as his deputies, unless there's some sort of serious crime for which a determination is needed, and then it's often farmed out to the state police lab or something. I remember that as recently as the mid-1980's Chicago's coroners were appointed positions, usually friends of the aldermen, and required no medical or scientific training.

If a person a few days post-op were to die, an autopsy would most likely be performed to see if the medical procedure contributed to death. If a 35-year-old woman drops dead, an autopsy might be done to determine the cause of death. In a traffic accident, where the cause of death is most likely trauma, no autopsy would be performed.

This summer I lost my grandmother, my stepfather, and my stepmother. None were autopsied My grandmother and stepfather died in the hospital of the conditions for which they were hospitalized. They were 98 and 82, respectively. My stepmother, who died in her sleep at the age of 62, is merely assumed to have died of a stroke.

reply

Very informative post.

I'm sorry for your losses. That must have been very hard.

reply

I think people are taking it all too seriously. I think she was dead all along. She wasn't starving or thirsty, her wounds didn't he'll nor get infected, she wasn't shivering, didn't feel any pain, and Deacon didn't fear her having weapons. Also, I thin that when we saw Her interacting with tDeacon or alone, we were only seeing her form her perspective or Deacon's.

But it doesn't bother me that other people think she was alive. Because I see this as a movie that's just toying with our ideas of the state of living and dying. I loved the movie and it didn't give me a headache. It works if she were dead or alive as far as I'm concerned.

I was in the mood for Liam Neeson and a creepy movie and I was pleased.

One thing's for sure. Little boys in turtleneck sweaters are creepy. Lol

reply

He did drain at least some of her blood (images reflecting the images of her hair being dyed in the beginning of the movie). You must have missed that scene.

reply

Ever see the blood being drained and the hair dyed at the same time? Yeah, neither have I. But what I do know is, as the blood is pumped out, embalming fluid is pumped into the body. And that is done pretty soon after the body reaches the funeral home, before decomposition set in from bacteria, not three days later. I do hair for funerals, and this was what I was told.

reply

Awesome post! Yes, she woulda started stinking BAD if she were dead. The embalming process was not done. No "Y" shaped incision on her chest, where the medical examiner opens her up to do the autopsy. No corpse is going to be animate like that! EVER! Not even if Eliot was a mortician with a special gift to talk to the dead. The M.E. HAD to be in on it! OR maybe the mortician pulls double-duty as a M.E.? The trocar inserted into Paul's body, right into a vital organ, ended his life right away. That is a sad ending of a movie. The two young lovers WERE alive, but this mortician/serial killer hybrid killed them both. Evil nutcase!

reply

Yep, I think that explains it really well.

Now I actually get the movie :)

reply

Concise... Well said. I actually noticed these things as they happened but I didn't totally put it together.

Liam Neeson said it started with his own mother, at one point he said to Anna something about people going back to their TV dinners, Jack's own mother was glued to the set instead of paying attention to him...

reply

Everything you said, I agree with. First I thought that perhaps he did have an ability, but also he killed people he felt should die, kind of a dual issue. This way we were kept guessing. Now after I read your post I am thinking more of Jacks mother and how she just sits around like she is dead. Perhaps she has also distorted his view of the living, i.e. if you lack luster for life as his mother, then you must be dead. Perhaps the chick wasn't dead because if you look at the scene when he says he thinks that one is dead and she picks up a very alive chick, it shows he isn't seeing a dead chick as he thinks. It is a weak little chick, pushed in the corner, doing nothing, and later shows to be scared of the dark, overall weak, much like his mother. Then you have Eliot twisting his new friends view to his.

Either way a great debatable movie. My opinion is that she is completely alive. I also pointed out that she had absolutely no pooling of blood as most bodies suffer when they die, yet her side wound is bruised.

reply

everything you just said is true!, in addition to what you just said, he keeps the door locked and the temp down, which makes her skin pale and makes her weak; resembling a dead person. and the muscle relaxing drugs he was giving her(why the hell do u give drugs to a corpse!)because she's not dead.
f%$k you! pay me-paul cicero,GoodFellas

reply

Wow... I was so confused about this movie but after reading your post, I now understand this film. What a really dark and disturbing film!!!



<Generation "me" is an EPIC FAILURE>

reply

I totally agree with sekcstar. Eliot is 'The Grim Reaper' who believes it his duty to bury those who does nothing with their lives.

He is indeed a psychopath and is teaching young Jack to follow.

reply

Also a give away is the lie he told to Ricci's character when she asked him if Long's character cried when he talked to Neeson's character.

That's what confirmed for me as to why she's actually alive. What point is there in lying to the dead?

-Nam

reply

[deleted]

I agree totally with sekcstar. I also think it was a pretty messed up film.

reply

Did you also see one of the pictures on his wall to be the kid ? .. I saw it twice .

"A man that wouldn't cheat for a poke don't want one bad enough".



reply

Every point you made is correct .. I am watching it now and just noticed one of the pictures is of the little boy .. they show half of it while showing another one .. what about that picture ?

"A man that wouldn't cheat for a poke don't want one bad enough".



reply

You are right Deacon is a serial killer and the director gave us several clues from chasing her car to cause her accident to push her boyfriend to have an accident. The kid knew about this plan and therefore he warn Paul the boyfriend not to forget fasten his seatbelt. The movie is about a killer.

reply

But what about the scene where her blood is being drained and, I assume(But not shown), being replaced with formaldehyde?

reply

I thought that was her hair dye being washed out?

reply

Yup - Was hair dye...not blood.

reply

There is no way that much dye would come out of any head of hair. And you can't wash out all the dye anyway, so her hair wouldn't go back to plain brown just by being washed. To make her a brunette, he'd have to dye her hair brown. And, lastly, you see a pool of some thickish, red liquid coming out from under the middle or lower part of her body (I don't know why that would happen during the draining, but it sure as hell can't be hair dye!). Or maybe I'm imagining things.

reply

[deleted]

Ah but he is not draining her blood! He's washing the red dye out of her hair. When her mother came to see her, she told him to wash the red out and make her hair it's natural color. I too first thought he was finally draining and preparing to embalm her, cause that would answer the questions, etc. But he never embalmed her, at least not on screen.

reply

That was hair dye (similar to the scene where she has hher dyed at the hair salon). And he doesn't embalm her.

reply

I fully agree with ijirix. The point of this movie was to spark intelligent conversation and debate.(Which it definetly has) Life and death being the topic. There was no definitive ending. Its what you make of the questions being raised. Is your life worth living? Reflect upon that.

reply

I don't see two realities contradicting each other here. In the end it's pretty clear that Anna was alive and so was Paul until Eliot shove that steel thing into him (sorry, don't know the correct term, I'm not a coroner). And sekcstar listed all the nessecary proof given throughout the film for that one and only closure.

I also think that the movie tried to make you think about your life and if it's worth living. When Paul asked Anna in the beginning if she was happy and she replied that she was it's clear that she's not. But to me it seemed that she was just unhappy with herself and she couldn't appreciate good things happening to her. She definitely had problems. And her mother was portraid as the perfect reason for that. She obviously took medication because of that what didn't help much but she never decided to end everything by taking her own life.

That decision was taken by Eliot who saw her only once at her piano teacher's funeral, thought she was unhappy, and then played "god" by ending her in his eyes lifeless life.

And all the others.

So he killed them all because he probably wasn't happy as well and thought he has the right to judge about the fate of others.

reply

Yep, basically Neeson's character was a funeral director version of Saw.

———
I'm not waiting for the answers on a Sunday afternoon...

reply

[deleted]

The long, steel thing that Eliot shoved into Paul is called a trocar. It is used by M.E.'s and morticians to start the embalming process. We NEVER saw that thing shoved into Anna's body. She was killed by being buried alive, which caused her to suffocate. Paul was killed by the trocar.

reply

Contains Spoilers

Did we all miss the point....

Most of the people on this board seem to think that she was alive and that Liam's character was a serial killer.

I tend to agree with them; but to me the more important question is "Do we really deserve this life ?" i mean most of us just waste away our days on monotonous & pleasure-less tasks and do not spend enough time with people and things we love, like family, friends, our passions etc.

Money and all its glittery allure has turned us into automatons which results essentially in lives that are empty, like a used up can of paint.

I think we need to think about this more then whether she was alive or dead after her accident, because either way, she ended up dead, and the life she lead before that was empty and dead as well.

reply

Why did she look like a corpse in the mirror then?

reply

My guess is that Eliot did a certain make-up on her. This adding the bad light, and there you go...

reply

A few pointers as to why she thought she was dead.

She looked like a corpse in the mirror, that was because the basement room was kept at a very controlled low temperature and she was naked or almost naked so she looked blue from the cold. That is also why she could not feel her hand when she hit it on the table.

She was weak and disoriented because she was not given anything to eat or drink for 3 days.

Deacon had also applied makeup to make her look like a corpse.

I am surprised why people still think she was dead after the accident because, first of all Deacon confessed to the kid that she was not dead, according to him there was not life left in her, and just because she piss and s- h- i- t did not mean she was alive. Secondly he clearly drugged her, the last time he shoots her with the drug you can clearly see the label on the bottle. There are many other pointers like the incident with the keys etc.

reply

they never explain why she looked like a corpse in the mirror but they dont have to.

there were so many scenes in the movie which people have pointed out already so i wont relist, that dont just give us a reason to maybe think she could possibly be alive, they ACTUALLY ARE SHOWING YOU THAT HE WAS A PSYCHOPATHIC MURDERER.

the aim of the movie wasnt to spark friggin debate about whether or not we value life.

look at how it was marketed. horror film.

who is in horror films?

PSYCHOPATHIC MURDERERS.

all you people whinging about respecting peoples interpretations or saying 'this is my interpretation' or saying the point of the movie was to send a message about live and whether we value it or whatever, i've got news for you. your just wrong.

it was supposed to be a horror film that made u not really know for sure for a while and then towards the end you do know for sure and thats it.

if i looked at a tomato and interpreted it as an apple, people shouldn't respect my opinion they should call me a moron. and nobody should debate about it.

reply

I tend to agree with them; but to me the more important question is "Do we really deserve this life ?" i mean most of us just waste away our days on monotonous & pleasure-less tasks and do not spend enough time with people and things we love, like family, friends, our passions etc.


This is the discussion the film wants us to have, as did Saw. But in both films, whatever the question "does this person deserve life?" leads us to answer, don't forget the second question "does a second person deserve to kill the first?" Whether or not Ricci wasn't enjoying life to the fullest, what right does that give Neeson to kill her? She was breathing air, but it didn't detract from his own breathing air - there's plenty of that around. Before the funeral parlor, I doubt they ever interacted a day in their lives.

And additionally, what about rats? viruses? Do they deserve to live? If he's so intent on ensuring that only those who deserve to live live, why doesn't he spend time exterminating lower life forms or curing diseases? Why spend all his effort on humans - that is a question that must also be answered. Simply because it's more convenient cannot be the sole justification.

reply

warning spoiler!

In the Extra section on the DVD there is an interview with the director. She gives us a very clear but maybe unsatisfying answer. Anna was certainly not dead. The director gives away most of the clues that were given in this thread too.
I think it was somewhat unsatisfying because i like open interpretations better.

The clue i liked best were the goosebumps on her body. Nice and subtle (both the clue and the body ;))

reply

Well if you watch the film closely, it clearly gives away the fact that she wasn't dead. Director commentary is not needed to confirm that.

———
I'm not waiting for the answers on a Sunday afternoon...

reply

Why was she not heard by Paul on the phone?




"All you get from killing monkeys is a deep sense of shame." - Alec

reply

Two points:

1. In my opinion she was definitely not dead; plenty of clues already pointed in this thread. One that I want to add concerns the second conversation between Jack and Elliot. Elliot says that first dead person he talked to was his mother...meaning she was the first person he killed as there was 'no life left in her'. We see a similar scenario with Jack's mom as she is always sitting in front of the TV and it seems that she has got 'no life in her', although she is not dead.

2. Another point I want to make is that Elliot use to choose his next victim right at the funeral site. He chose Anna at her piano teachers funeral and Paul at Anna's funeral as, according to him, they didn't seem to have any life left in them.

reply

Well, the phone as it looked like
was an old dial phone not tone phone,

it might be due to how old the phone line in this old funeral home were.

I got that Liam was a psycho killer when he said to the boy jack, i will bury her not because she is dead but because she wasnt alive.

and then he made a reference towards the (walking corpses) who pee and defecate!!!! all over (which means that those guys are biologically alive but spiritually dead) ... and he took it as his job to get rid of them.

Also, the boy is definitely psycho material as the poor thing was bullied constantly by kids.

Just my two euros! lol

reply

She wasnt dead. Another clue not mentioned here is that at the beginning the old mans jaw moved a bit in the casket and Liam kind of changed the subject and later Anna moves a tad and freaks out her boyfriend so he says "shes too cold"

reply

Why is everyone saying he didn't hear her? He definitely heard her. He just didn't trust his own mind anymore after one telling him she's dead, the other one telling him she's alive and he also halucinated or maybe dreamed about her being in the shower where she wasn't. He clearly said "Please stop!" before he hung up. So I assume he heard her, he just didn't believe it.

reply