I've heard the ending referred to as a mindf*ck. All that happens is the 2 vampyres run away and possibly go back into their graves, and the main guy finds out that they were just ghosts inhabiting the mansion and he sees the real owners...correct? since we already knew that the vampyres weren't alive, how is that a minf*ck?
shareno they werent ghosts they were vampires that occupied the house since they died, the peopel that showed up where just looking at the house to see if they wanted to buy it, basically the vampires were in trouble of people finding out so they killed the two innocent by standers and ran for it..and let they guy that actual knew to live gawd this was a waste of my life
shareI guess you didn't liked the girl-on-girl action in this movie, right? Me, i think much higher of this movie, and not just because of the lesbian sex. It's a very well made with an intriguing satisfying story, and if you didn't dig it... your loss, mate. Maybe 70s movies are not for you.
"A good movie is three good scenes and no bad scenes" Howard Hawks
I'm still trying to find out if the man that got away was the same man that shot them years ago. First thing that points toward this is the older man in the BB recognizing him and insisting that it had been ages since he had been in the area, the second was the mans insistence that he knew someone who looked and very much reminded him of the vampyre that he gave a lift to. The movie looked like it started in this direction, even making it appear that he was going to show something in his bag (it made a show of him locking the door to his rented room), but as the movie went on, this theme seemed to disappear. For one, the man didn't recognize the manor he was in or seem to question any familiarity he may have had. What do you think? Is the man that gets away at the end the same man that shoots the vampyre girls before they become vampyres? Anyways, I appreciate the aspect of a movie that doesn't reveal all in the end, I like to think about different ways the movie or the characters could continue, I just wish there were a few more definitive clues.
shareI have to say i have yet to find or come up myself with a satisfying answer for all the questions that the ending raises, but for once i actually like the fact there's no easy answers for it. If you ask me, the movie might be even better if such questions never get answers.
"There is no Seyser Koze!!!" Gabriel Byrne blunder while filming The Usual Suspects.
I agree the ending is somewhat anti-climactic as far as conventional storytelling is concerned, I suspect it may be due to an underdeveloped script though it doesn't really bother me in that it adds to the overall bizzare and esoteric quality of the film.
shareThe ending is described in the commentary on the dvd and basically the person at the start who kills them is the man who drives away at the end.
share[deleted]
Actually I thought the film was way above average and erotic in an R rated way. I agree with jakduby comments, there seemed to be something they were trying to work in about the lead man Ted. Remember also when the blond vampire says to the other, 'You're playing a dangerous game' referring her sleeping with Ted. So why did they kill those 2 hippies and let him get away? Why not kill all 3, especially if he was somehow connected to their murders earlier? Perhaps they were going to turn him into a vampire as revenge? I actually don't mind that its not all tied up at the end, it works for me.
shareMy theory is that they killed the caravanners so that Ted would be blamed for their murder, which is suggested as he is seen at the house the morning after the murder.
Maybe this was their revenge for Ted killing them at the start of the film, which is suggested but not fleshed out later in the film.
However that doesn't explain why he doesn't remember them
You're an errand boy, sent by grocery clerks, to collect a bill
*********WARNING: CONTAINS MAJOR SPOILERS********
Actually, you all needed to check out the Director's Commentary on the DVD.
Contrary to what the viewer naturally thinks, the opening scene of the movie was not two innocent women being murdered by a Mysterious Stranger, who then become murderous vampires. The opening scene in fact was Ted returning after his escape to murder the already murderous vampires. In other words, the events we see in the movie took place BEFORE, not after, the opening scene. Get it?
The ending was simply Ted doing what the old man said was the thing murderers are supposed to do (i.e. return to the scene of the crime).
Thanks diem, that makes sense. I have the DVD but haven't gotten around to watching the directors commentary. Silly me!
You're an errand boy, sent by grocery clerks, to collect a bill
I had a feeling that might be the case, but thanks for clearing it up; I haven't listened to the commentary yet.
share
Why was Ted wearing a cowboy hat when he killed them then?
No Guru, No Method, No Teacher.
So these vampyres are killed just by being shot?
shareThey were not genuine vampires. Ted killed Mirium and Fran in the opening scene because of what they did to him. What they did was recapitulated in the form of a nightmare brought upon by a night of heavy drinking as indicated in the closing scene. In other words, the bulk of the film was the motive in the form of a dream.
A good film, though not for everybody.
did i watch the same movie? wtf?
share