If she wasn't dead...

They try to explain it away using the drug he gave her along with the decreased room temp...however it is such a stretch that it is blatantly illogical. It is not possible to go without food and water for those periods. Even if you decrease your metabolic rate and activity level it still is not possible. Her electrolytes would have been abnormal. Her blood sugar levels would have stooped soo low that she would have been in a coma. The combination of both would have at the very least altered her behavior, thinking ability, and ability to even communicate. Even after one day, much less after several days. The entire movie pulled multiple stretches. Soo many that it was utterly ridiculous. This is just one of them. Even after the director tries to explain it away it's still sloppy.

the drugs kept her heartrate and metabolism so low, she didn't use any energy thus she didn't need any food;
like some sort of a hybernation; a bear doesn't get up to get food during the winter for months

[deleted]

The more important question would be: Didn't she need to pee or -- ahem -- otherwise need to use the bathroom? Even if you skipped dinner, the next day your body would still need to eliminate wastes from before. And that, my friends, would be an absolute giveaway. Ghosts may mimic living people in many ways, but would they need to pee and poo? I don't think so.

my by she feed by injections!

She was in shock .. you don't have much of an appetite when you are in shock.

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

The implication was she did. There is a line where he says "Just because you P I s s and S h I t you think you are alive."

That at least answers that aspect of it.

When she is dressed for the funeral, Deacon opens the door for her to give her a final chance. When she leaves she doesn't embrace "living" as one would expect - she embraced the death. She came back he commented how he thought she might be the one who was "different from the others" - meaning his message got through to her. It didn't.

I think he killed Paul with the embalming tool at the end since Paul realized Anna had been buried alive after all. Paul was obviously in pain though he was paralyzed. Anna never seemed to be in pain - also of note is that Anna was also never embalmed as we can tell.

I revisited this film recently and didn't enjoy it nearly as much as when I originally saw it years ago.

She was obviously alive and was murdered by a serial killer.

The director places silly red herrings in the film, that now look like desperate attempts to make us question what is going on - but they fail miserably. No sense can be made of any of those attempts either. Example: Near the end of the film when the caretaker allows her to step outside, we are shown a macabre moment where the victim is inundated by strange women in black robes while her fiancée stands and watches. Huh? Just write it off as side effects from the drugs combined with malnutrition I suppose. But it reeks of desperation at this point.

I suppose the film is a ham fisted attempt intending its viewers to reflect on the value of life by reminding them not to get carried away with the negatives. That to allow ourselves to be consumed by the negative we become dead even while we live. Oh, and to give us a thriller involving a serial killer and a hint at a horror film.

It was mildly entertaining years ago. Upon a second viewing it seems silly and insulting.