Confused throughout ! - Shallow Ground (2005) Discussion

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

THIS CONTAINS SPOILERS OF THE FILM ---JUST WANTED TO WARN EVERYBODY!!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I was confused as well. Okay, so the dead want revenge. Why on earth did Darby get it? What crime did she commit? And why did the guy go bonkers and shoot the guy working the radio trying to ask if things were weird at all around the dam? How on earth did ol' granny do what she did, especially when it came to men? I mean, granny VS big guy? Then again, I was confused to the point where little made sense...the blood always moving, don't touch the blood- the revenge aspect, yet those innocent of any crimes involved with the missing were being taken out and stuff? The hunter? What'd he do? Little of it made sense. In the end- who did what killing? The 'missing' mosaic people or the older woman?

I just didn't get it- revenge, I got...but most of it was just fairly senseless.

reply

[–] impaler69 18 years ago

The plot pretty much went like this:
1. Disgruntled old lady kills lots of people because she blames the dam for the death of her family.
2. These people rise from the dead and become a composite person, in the form of a bloodstained boy.
3. Bloodstained boy eventually gets revenge on evil lady.
4. Evil lady apparently rises from the dead two minutes after getting killed and kills bloodstained boy (stupid, illogical ending, probably a setup to a sequel).

Subplot the First: Old cop could have saved girl, but didn't. It haunts him, her dad blames him

Subplot the Second: Second dead dude, a drug dealer I think, kills a cop in the city and the young cop in the town in revenge for his death.

The plot was fairly simple, but you did have to pay attention to understand it. If you want a motive for the woman, she killed anyone she felt was connected to the dam, and anyone else who got in her way or might have exposed her (like the hunter).

Problems: the ending sucked, movie required suspension of disbelief (e.g., how the hell did no one notice the reek of the corpses in the old lady's house?, how did old lady manage to kill all those grown men?)

Overall, it wasn't bad considering its budget. Better than many recent horror movies (I Know What You did Last Summer, Friday the 13th part 11, etc.)

"There is no room for failure now. The innocent must die."

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] choa15 18 years ago

The ending made sense to me, although I don't think the dark dead guy was anyone in particular, perhaps he was as the red one was, a combination of people murdered in vengence. I can imagine that he would be made up of each of the people in the movie offed for having killed someone (Helen, Harvey, etc).

But the movie was extremely confusing for me, I missed the first half hour and spent the rest of the time trying to put the pieces together. I'm also not a gore fan so I had to mute it near the end. Ick.

reply

[–] elizabethbennet135 17 years ago

That's definitely what I was thinking (that the dead guy was a combo of people killed in vengeance). Perhaps he was sort of a combination of all of the murdered people everywhere (I mean, all of the people killed in revenge, that were killed by the rising dead), and was taking out all of the risen-dead... or maybe he accidentally fell out of a plothole from a neighboring horror movie.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] DisturbedPixie 11 years ago

The thjing is at the scene of the other bloodied guy, they said there has been 36 so far... 36 composite revenge spirits? they cant all be connected to the samer killer if there is something like 360 dead people seeking revenge all over the place... why would they think it's over if just one killer go stopped? well she didn't cuz she came back to kill the main bloody composite spirits dude. And I say 360, because I think the finger prints showed 10 victims in one bloody dude.

I just don't get why they'd all show up now, when one town is packing up and leaving after the damn was completed... they aren't all connected to the damn...

reply

[–] cornflowermonroe 18 years ago

excellent recap .. saved me a lot of typing.

people need to understand one thing .. the dead don't kill anybody in this movie. the bloody boy didn't kill anybody, not Darby, nobody. Darby was killed by the upset older woman for the reason impaler stated.

to the problems, i disagree. the end made total sense to me. the bloody boy was responsible for the death of that guy the deputy shot (Harvey), so the dead guy (Harvey) came back and killed him. that was not the old woman who came back from the dead.
i do agree with nobody noticing the stench, to some degree, but again, if you paid attention, she was preserving them, for the most part. in the opening sequences they show the unseen killer coating the bodies with formaldehyde and stuff like that. and also, who really ever visited her? remember when the older woman asked Darby to come by later because she gets so lonely? so who would notice what smell there would be?

reply

[–] creptaway 18 years ago

about darby. did anyone else figure out that the old lady was angry with her. she didn't seem it so much at the start, but she wanted her to "come by to meet her family" or whatever... was she planning to off her from the start? who was the family? they never got there if they weren't just dead people... **confused as heck**

Sincerely,
The creepy girl next door.

reply

[–] jf224 18 years ago

the old lady was setting darby up to kill her. "the family" was all the dead people she'd assembled. in fact, when she has jack chained up there, she even refers to the corpses as "the family." i think darby had said something about how she was supposed to be with the old lady's daughter that day she was killed, so i guess that's why she was somehow "guilty" in the deaths at the dam...

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] superduperade 18 years ago

I havent watched the film for a while but i thought I'd have a look here to see if anyone had a clue about the very end. Seems that everyone is as unsure as me. I'm fine with the old woman killing everyone etc... that all makes sense. However I think the random zombie bloke popping out from behind the tree in the last few moments might be that Stuart Dempsey character. It looks like him very vaguely, the last time you see him in the film he's in a bit of a pickle with that sheriff bloke and you'd found out that he wasn't really a nice guy with all that shooting the dealer bit who incidentally had also risen from the dead or something had he not cos there's a scence which shows him covered in blood and naked in the city.
You will all probably think I'm wrong but it was worth a shot.

p.s I agree though it's a bit of a crap movie.

reply

[–] cornflowermonroe 18 years ago

the "zombie" guy at the end was the guy the deputy killed while under the influence of the bloody kid. remember the guy who was at first in the holding cell, sleeping off his drunk? we then learn that he's been raping and killing girls when the bloody kid gives the deputy that vision?

my body is nobody's body but mine; you run your own body, let me run mine

reply

[–] Bou 14 years ago

I agree with the person you replied to. I thought that the "popping out of nowhere" zombie was the bad cop and that the zombie he assaulted was the drug dealer zombie, not the bloody-boy zombie.

What a crap film.

reply

[–] clyderob 18 years ago

I just watched the making of extra and the special effects guy said the bloody guy who "kills" the bloody boy at the end is "Stuart." I hope that clears up some confusion. Too bad his eyes looked like Helen's.

reply

[–] Vixina 17 years ago

Why would Stuart be back? That just doesn't make any sense. The black zombie of death had to be the old lady. I mean the blood boy killed her so it's viable withing the crazy rules of this movie that she'd be back.

how could it be Stuart? wouldn't he be killing the other blood boy junkie who killed him?

If you weren't real, I would make you up.

reply

[–] Demarates 16 years ago

I mean the blood boy killed her so it's viable withing the crazy rules of this movie that she'd be back.

how could it be Stuart? wouldn't he be killing the other blood boy junkie who killed him?

-------------

I agree, Stuart doesn't make sense.

I'd say Helen, possibly combined with old man Harvey (who Stuart killed, but under influence from the kid).

I am not a complete idiot. Some parts are missing.

reply

[–] DisturbedPixie 11 years ago

to me the last zombie was the old lady because it looked the same as she did when the original bloody composite spirit was killing her. It looked like now she is coming back for revenge, which tells me that's the problem with revenge... it never ends.

Good spirits try to right things, all together, and all those they took revenge on come back to take their revenge. I'm sure it happened with the other bloody spirits they eluded to, including the drug dealer. Now why does the drug dealer get his own personal spirit, when others had to share a bloody boy body?

If some effects dude says otherwise, that's not the same as the word of god (director). I've seen main actors in films that had no idea what was going in the movie. Example It Takes Two: Mary-Kate and Ashley Olson have no clue whether they were supposed to be long lost twin sisters, or somehow identical non related girls. Some movies are just so poorly contrived, most involved don't have a clue. You have to consider rewrites too.

reply

[–] hollywoodxpink 18 years ago

Thanks. That helped me understand, sort of. But I still don't get why this movie won some sort of award. It was one of those movies that had a stupid ending that didn't make sense like "White Noise". I don't know. The acting wasn't good, the music was overly dramatic.....oh, and what was up with the lady supposedly being dead for a year?? and grandma being the killer ruined the whole movie. it would have been better if it were something more supernatural and demonic. gah. movies like this bother me. I want my $3.99 back from Blockbuster.

reply

[–] dire_meerkat 18 years ago

I think her comment about "being dead for a year" was just a sappy, metaphorical thing: "I've been dead inside since my husband and daughter were killed...". That sort of thing.

reply

[–] fatherboone 16 years ago

Jesus, I was so confused, but thanks for explaining it to me. But still a horrible movie.

reply

[–] delphine_neilson 17 years ago

ok, topic one: helen (the old lady) killing men
first of all, she snuck up on the hunter by surprise. (side step: was the hunter at all necessary to any part of the movie??) maybe she snuck up on all the other men she killed, and got them that way.
also, did anyone else notice that Amy and Darby (the ones tied up in their underwear in the woods) were strung up with pulleys?? this explains how sixty-something year old lady was able to 'carry' any of her victims.
question one: I understand why Helen felt the need to kill all those people (they, or those who loved them, were responsible in some way for the dam that eventually killed her husband and daughter), but why did she need to cut them open and sew them back up while they were still alive?? why any mutilation at all??

topic two: the blood
question one: apparently Deputy Laura checked the blood boy over well enough to know that he was not injured, and that the blood was not his own. how did she do this without touching the blood? and if she did touch it, why did everyone else get a vision from touching it but she didn't??
question two: why did the blood go back and forth, in and out??
question three: I assumed that the blood boy was bloody because of all the blood shed and the horror suffered by the ten or so people he was composed of. but why was Curtis (drug dealer from the city) covered in blood? he was beaten a little, and then shot once.

I know what you're thinking and you should be ashamed!

reply

[–] inuyasha_is_a_cutie 18 years ago

I havn't finished watching it yet (I'm confused because I'm not paying attention) but don't say you won't watch it again. Sometimes it just takes another watching. Think of it this way. Think of a movie you loved watching when you were a kid, that when you watch now, you wonder what the hell was wrong with you. ...Not the best example, but you can understand what's going on better if you watch again, possibly after waiting awhile.

...Happens to me all the time with the Harry Potter books. I didn't know Sirius was dead for good until after I reread it a second time after a few months.

reply

[–] dixiemagnolia5 18 years ago

I understand what you mean. Let me tell you though,this isen't a movie TO want to watch again. I usually love horror and suspense,but,I don't like the kinds I can't understand at all. There have been a few I have seen like that,besides "Shallow Ground." Example....,"Secret Window," with Johnny Depp in it. Thank-you for your reply and thoughts though! :-)

Melody

reply

[–] lazyoli 18 years ago

"remember when the older woman asked Darby to come by later because she gets so lonely? so who would notice what smell there would be? "

yeah her "family" is coming to visit her. :)
and later when she has tied jack up, she says: welcome to the family! tom and jessica will be happy to meet you.

yes it does make sense, ...somewhat. though it is confusing. the blood boy didn't kill anybody. the old woman did.
she's angry about everybody because she was the only one who didn't want the dam
to be build. she thought it was too dangerous and then her family really died. so it does make sense that she hates them all. she kills the children and loved ones of all who had something to do with the dam. so the movie is about a "double revenge". the lady revenges her family by murder, the evolving dead ones themselves then are coming back to revenge themselves (and finally at the end there's even a third revenge. :))
maybe the boy is trying to find out who the killer is, so he says no one leaves.
seems like he has to touch a person to read his mind. strangely enough the 6 mixed up people seemed to have lost their memories after their death.

what i don't get is the vision stuart has when he touches the boy first time when he's taking his fingerprints.
who's that girl that he's abducting? has he killed two persons? and what's that necrophiliac scene about, placed in the same wood scenario as the other killings?
or is that harvey when he was young? is this the killing stuart later talks about after he shot him? i don't get it.

also i don't get the ending. this seems to be a man (no breasts!) with the empty eyes of the dead killer lady. the lady is smaller and thinner as the boy, you can see when he kills her. this guy seems to be stronger also he has short hair and stuff.
so from his haircut and size i see only option: the hunter!
but don't ask me why he does that! :)

maybe because he "owes" him one, and stuart got killed by the dead drug dealer. which seems to be the same kind as the boy. maybe they're two incarnations of the same vengeful spirit.
they're here to take revenge. -who? -the dead!
that's the dialogue. i almost expected at this point that the movie would go "dawn of the dead" suddenly. all zombie shooting and smashing. hehe. :)
then stuart dies, like he killed the dealer. with a bullet in the chest. here two things seem to get mixed up i think. if all dead raise who were murdered to take revenge, why does the dealer exactly know where to look for his murderers,
even in a big city(!)? apparently if you merge 6 dead people into one, they a)suddenly lose their memory who their killer is or b) they have the dire urge to roam across town to scare the crap out of innnocent people.
i think this different types of revengeful deads just don't fit into the same movie. it's either or.
all in all i got the impression there were too many subplots which COULD have carried a lot of tension themselves merged into one movie. just think the of the father of the missing girl, as he wants to force jack's new girl friend, to find the killer. the scene last only a few seconds, the plot can hardly evolve. it just started, you are given some facts and a certain situation to create tension, then it's already over. all goes by the way like, "oh yeah and then there was that insane father, who wanted to shoot the main character, but that's not so important. oh and then there's that police officer in the city who's the father of laura and ... ah, maybe i'll tell you some other time. and so on."

yeah, gimme your thoughts on that...

p.s.: nah wait, when stuart loses his baseball cap he also is missing some hair at the forehead. it's gotta be him who kills the boy at the end! would make sense. he really has a reason to be pissed off.
p.p.s.: since the blood boy who is to one sixth amy, is crying when her father dies, i have come to the conclusion, that the boys intention was to get the attention of the living so that they can find the killer. the blood boy doesn't lure them into a trap when he appears at the window, he wants them to discover the bodies. so almost everything makes sense to me, except the second drug dealer blood guy.

reply

[–] lazyoli 18 years ago

one final try with logic. :P (before i go crazy)
ok, to sum it up in short:

1. all murdered victims are raising to kill their murderer.
2. if a killer has more than one victim, they merge into one human form.

that would mean for the finale, that indeed, as someone wrote in a previous post, the "burnt" killer, who kills the blood boy, has to be a mixture of blood boy's victims.

but that would be only the old lady, or am i wrong? and this guy, slow mow will show you, has definetely no breasts!!!

it doesn't fit. i'll leave it that way.

reply

[–] JeremyQuest 18 years ago

but what i want to know.....is......who killed amy in the first place? who was that? i have watched the movie twice and still never got that one

reply

[–] klm89 18 years ago

ok i know everyone keeps saying that the old lady went about killing everyone, but wasn't there a topless guy who knelt down to kiss one of the murdered naked woman? i'm sure that's what i saw but it doesn't make much sense so maybe i just imagined it.

It was like we were dancing Marty!

reply

[–] BlueWolf-58 18 years ago

The topless guy who knelt down to kiss one of the murdered naked women was Harvey who Stuart the Deputy shot after he "saw" what Harvey had done to the girl.

If the blood boy (who was rather cute I must add) was a composite of the dead victims maybe the thing at the end was a composite of the dead murders seeking revenge for being killed!!

It's movies like this that need a commentary by the writer/director so he can explain what he was trying to do!

reply

[–] whiterose2 18 years ago

clyderob already said in a previous post: "I just watched the making of extra and the special effects guy said the bloody guy who "kills" the bloody boy at the end is "Stuart." I hope that clears up some confusion. Too bad his eyes looked like Helen's."

So there's no more confusion who the dead guy was at the very end getting revenge on the "boy".

reply

[–] pestilence_gj 18 years ago

I really don't understand how you can not understand what is going on in this movie?

The old lady is the killer. Always has been.

The dead all over the world are rising to get revenge for wrongful deaths. If a killer has more than one victim, those victims merge into a composite form....in this case, the Bloody Boy.

When they find the killer, they make sure they suffer the same fate they did (see OUR FATE IS YOURS on the station door, and Stuart's phantom bullet in the chest).

When people are touched, they aren't shown THEIR OWN visions, but the deaths of the blood-covered person who touched them. The vision that Stuart has is Harvey, raping and killing multiple women....that's why he shoots him.

The dead do retain their memories, but from the flashbacks it's pretty clear that all of the Old Lady's victims DID NOT SEE who their killer was due to her wearing the mack. I don't believe that death simply gives you all of the knowledge in the world. It ends at death, and the Boy needed to use the officers to find out who it actually was, before gaining revenge.

All you need to do is PAY ATTENTION when watching the film. Concentrate on the images, and LISTEN to what people have to say and to be honest it's not hard to follow. Take your damn ADD pills, or make notes or something.

Incidentally, I listened to the commentary last night, and at the end, the director doesn't explain who the final creature is that kills the Boy. He just says that he loves making audiences ask questions and discuss things, when there may not actually be an answer! Cheeky ******.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Nan00k 18 years ago

pestilence_gj, you sadi: "If a killer has more than one victim, those victims merge into a composite form....in this case, the Bloody Boy.
...
When people are touched, they aren't shown THEIR OWN visions, but the deaths of the blood-covered person who touched them. The vision that Stuart has is Harvey, raping and killing multiple women..."

OK Mr. "Pay Attention" ;) tell me this: If Bloody Boy was the composite of Grandma's victims, how did he show Stuart Harvey's crimes?

This movie makes my brain hurt. Liked the boobies though.

reply

[–] magalhas 18 years ago

One of those 6 mixed ppl was the one who was raped and violated after being dead. yes, it doesnt make many sense considering that it wasnt the old woman who killed that girl, but in my opinion the 6 mixed persons weren't the ones that the old woman killed, but 6 different ppl searching for revenge, if you notice, those 6 ppl were killed in a ray of 150km, so that means that those ppl were burried near one another (and all were killed in the same forest).

the movie made sense to me, but I had some doubts about the dead like zombie characters being mixed up or being just one, like that drug dealer, but I liked the explaination gave by other ppl who posted here. One thing that I still don't understand is this: laura's father when first appears had a dialogue with a woman who said that there were 34 cases like that one, which means that there were many ppl seeking revenge.... How does it happen? Maybe that land was cursed.... Lol

reply

[–] jerseybabe1981 18 years ago

even after reading this whole thread, I am still confused as to why Amy was killed, and who did it. if the old woman was killing for Amy's revenge, wouldn't it be because someone else killed Amy? but Amy was shown being murdered by the person in the mask...the same way the old woman was going around doing her murders. I also felt that she showed some agitation in the beginning with Darby, so I wasn't surprised to find that she killed Darby as well.
also, the ending. I'm not so sure it was explained by the movie enough to rule out a sequel, like some others here have mentioned. I think the directors wanted to leave it open ended like that to make you wonder, just who was that evil dead guy, and what happens next? All I really want to figure out is who started this whole thing by killing Amy, and why.

reply

[–] tom_sexybeast303 18 years ago

The damn movie never explained why she hooked them to look like they were having dinner. It made no sense. The whole movie was total rubbish. There were so many plotholes like how darby's father knew what they people covered in blood were its not somethig that you can figure out especially since the peopole didnt talk except when people were having flashbacks when they touched the blood and they were just things like "how could you let me die"

reply

[–] olyphanto2 18 years ago

I gotta admit that this movie confused me too. It was kinda hard to stay focused with all the bad acting. Just as I thought I had i all figured out, the dead started killing the dead. What happens to the dead people after they get there revenge? Do they go on "living"? And why didn't the dead boy have any wounds like the dead man killing him? It does not make any sense.

reply

[–] elizabethbennet135 17 years ago

Tom: I think she hooked the people up to look like they were having dinner to replace her own family that was killed when the dam broke. Or, rather more likely, the writers decided to do that because it looked mad creepy.
Olyphanto: I think the dead boy had no wounds because he was a composite of the murdered people, so he was like... a new, unhurt person. The guy who killed the boy still had the wounds he suffered when he died.

I enjoyed this movie, it was rather different from the standard horror fare, at least, even if the acting wasn't always that great.

reply

[–] mlambert890-1 17 years ago

Amy was the daughter of the dam foreman. The older guy who took Laura the cop hostage to force Jack to keep searching for the killer. Amy had nothing to do with Helen the old lady serial killer. Helen went nuts because her daughter and husband died in an accident at the damn and, ridiculously, transformed into a full blown Hostel level serial killer (which really makes no sense to be honest, when you consider criminal psychology and what serial killers are, but its a horror movie so who cares)

So Helen the old lady killed Amy to get revenge on her dad for being the dam foreman. Basically, ANYONE who had ANYTHING to do with the Dam was getting killed. Their families too. Thats why she had so many news clippings of various people having gone missing with their names circled in RED and the word GUILTY in red written there. The last clipping they show is of AMY and the camera lingers on it...

I think most of the "confused" people on the thread are creating complexity where there simply is none and/or just not really paying attention.

The only thing that makes sense for the final "black" zombie is that it is a composite of the killers who had been offed coming back for revenge on the blood zombies who had just gotten THEIR revenge. Basically, the world is spiraling into an apocalypse.

It's just a stupid ending to a mediocre movie. People look for too much in this kind of crap - it isnt Shakespeare. The director/writer probably started with "HOW COOL WILL *THIS* BE?!?!?" and then just filmed the black zombie thing.

reply

[–] R_o_K 17 years ago

I agree. How could the Bloody Boy show Staurt what Harvey had done if the Bloody Boy was a composite of the Old Lady's killings?

reply

[–] DisturbedPixie 11 years ago

yes, made no sense. If the bloody boys were all from different killers, then why were they connected? why did they show up when the this one town was being cleared out? They werent all connected to this one town

and why should innocent people have to stay away from the bloody boy, like Ray said? The bloody boy wasn't after them.

And what's with the other bloody boys? they said 36 so far.... why would it all be over once the old lady died? Their should still be at least 34 other bloody boys walking around seeking revenge.

and why would the final blackish bloody revenge spirit be comprised of all the murderers? It should only be the old lady killing the original bloody boy, right? he didn't take revenge on anybody else. he only stuck his hand into the old lady. So the final revenge spirit shown should have tits....

this makes no sense.

reply

[–] Bou 14 years ago

Sure, yeah, right, feh.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] R_o_K 17 years ago

I think this movie was great. It's very macabre so horror genre fans should enjoy it. The movie has some plot problems and is quite confusing. I was still confused at the end of the movie so I had to read some posts here to better understand the film. But perhaps figuring it out is not the point. Perhaps the uncertainty adds another layer to the film. I think this movie was cool.

reply

[–] funky71 17 years ago

I think that whole zombie killing the bloody boy is basically saying the dead always come back for revenge....even those that did bad things in their lifetime....if they were killed wrongly or unjustifiably. the bloody boy served its purpse and gots its revenge against the lady and now that "stuart/zombie" man has risen for his own purpose...kinda stupid....but i must have missed that whole scence where he gets shot?? I dunno....

reply

[–] Outpost_31 17 years ago

Capsule Review: PIECE OF *beep*

How anyone can think this movie has any redeeming qualities is beyond me...

reply

[–] fenderjaguar312 17 years ago

here's my question....If the bloody boy is made up of all the dead people that want revenge then he is dead himself, so how could the other guy at the end kill him if he's already dead?

reply

[–] Rkinsey 17 years ago

I Loved This Movie. I think tat when the murdered kill their murderer they get to die and become "settled"

reply

[–] magical_trumpy 17 years ago

it really had potential...but I have to admit, it was way too confusing. Good idea, poor execution. yeah...and the ending was retarded...why would Stuart kill the boy, he didn't kill him, Curtis did.

reply

[–] americanjuniorss 17 years ago

Ok I think the ending black guy who asspwnd the boy was all the people the boy just killed. IDK if anyone mentioned this earlier.

reply

[–] delphine_neilson 17 years ago

how many people did the boy kill??

because I assumed that all the bloody revenge seekers were only killing the people that'd killed them (if that makes any sense). so wouldn't the boy have only killed the old lady?

but if that were true, the black guy at the end wouldn't have been a guy it would've been the old lady. so: either the bloody boy killed more people than I know about, or I was right before and the ending of the movie had no though put into it other than, "hey, wouldn't this be cool?!"

I know what you're thinking and you should be ashamed!

reply

[–] voodooloa_812 16 years ago

Just another movie to *beep* with everybody's heads.

reply

[–] movieperson113 15 years ago

Yeah the thing about the Bloody killer boy was a bit non-sensical.
The cop getting killed by the drug pusher's spirit was a cut and dry revenge sub-plot.

I think that maybe the blackened zombie guy was just a creature that destroyed the bloody-revenge-people once they got revenger on their murderer. So probably the zombie guy would destroy the drug pusher guy eventually too.
Though where the blackened zombie came from is anybody's guess.

reply

[–] Lurban1000 13 years ago

This movie makes no sense WHATSOEVER! This is what I call film garbage!

reply

[–] bitterblkcoffeeman 10 years ago

If you have a brain, this movie will confuse you! This movie is not worth recommending or watching. I kept waiting for the hunter to work his way into the plot. It didn't happen. Why was he needed at all? The blood going backwards and forwards...again...why? None of what graced my eyeballs was worth my time. Take my advice. If you don't want to be confused or disappointed, ignore this movie. Everyone's time is more valuable than this complete flop! This movie made me feel like I've been caught by my Mom in my bedroom spanking a very friendly monkey. I'm ashamed of myself at this moment...!

reply