MovieChat Forums > The Last Broadcast (1998) Discussion > The Blood Evidence was never explained

The Blood Evidence was never explained

posted 11 years ago by motowntalent
4 replies | jump to latest

So the Killer was this dude from out of nowhere. With no motive, MILES into the woods. As many people have pointed out, this is a bad ending for various reasons.

My comment is, there was clearly blood/dna evidence linking Jim to the crime, this 'twist' ending doesn't explain away this. Jim had no explanation for it, and from the crime scene photo the blood was significant.

Just one of the many reason I wanted to punch my screen during the third act of this movie. Very good 1st 2/3rds though.

[–] registers-944-48791 9 years ago

SRSLY, after all that I read about this movie, saying it's better than BWP!

Cmon, how did the blood of all 3 went hang in his clothes?! Somebody says it's not proof enough, because it was few blood and for a murderer it should be much more. But hey, this proves at least 2 things:

1) He was in touch with all 3 victims OR the murderer AFTER they were at least harmed!
2) He didn't just lost their track and left there without any clue. SOMETHING happened!

There was no explanetion to the blood. At least say the murderer took blood samples and put in his clothes later!!

Also, why did the murderer make all that documentary trying to prove Suerd wasn't guilty? What did he wanna do after all? I believe he took the tape that recorded the murder and maybe destroyed parts of it. Maybe he was believing nobody would catch him, and when the girl did he urged to kill her? Maybe he was just having fun with the fact that an innocent person was jailed and he was free?

And no word about how Suerd died, and no word about repercutions of the girl murder.

Worst end ever.

[–] blazegarrett91 9 years ago

you don't get it do you? the film maker (David Leigh) WAS the Jersey Devil! Jim Seurd stayed at the camp the entire time. the film maker killed all three guys. Jim Seurd couldn't find them, so he just went to the road and hitch hiked to a pay phone. he didn't know about blood on his shirt because he didn't have blood on his shirt until after he was arrested and the Jersey Devil planted it. he killed Jim Seurd through supernatural means and basically made the documentary to relish in his work. and the fact that he wouldn't be caught.

[–] registers-944-48791 9 years ago

Based on which scene you say that the blood was planted?

Hey I said it's a possibility. But when would that happen? And how could he not know about the blood in his shirt?

He must either touch the victims or the murderer!

[–] blazegarrett91 8 years ago

Jim didn't know about the blood. if he was really a killer and planned the whole thing out, he wouldn't have just left the shirt on the floor of his apartment. also, a good point they made in the movie: too butcher three grown men like that, there's no possible way you'd walk away from it with just a few droplets on your shirt. arterial spray from three people would leave him soaked in blood.