MovieChat Forums > After.Life (2009) Discussion > She did not bleed so how could she be al...

She did not bleed so how could she be alive ? And other red herrings

posted 13 years ago by Mikel3
29 replies | jump to latest

When Deacon was stitching up that hole in Anna's head she did not bleed one drop. A living body would bleed at least a little during that procedure even if she was drugged not to feel the pain. On the other-hand her breath did show on the mirrors and a dead person wouldn't cause that. She also didn't seen to care that she was totally naked in front of Deacon, you'd think she would have been embarrassed instead of so comfortable like that. Yeah, yeah, blame it on the drug or maybe she is a bit of a exhibitionist.

The more I think about it the more PO-ed I get that the writers were not consistent. Yes, it's good to make a movie people need to think about after the end titles, but at least be fair with your clues.

I think what they wanted to express was the little kid and Deacon seemed to have certain abilities. One was the way the kid made the lights in the school scare Anna. Also, he warned Paul to wear his seat belt. That happened not long before Paul was "killed" in a car accident. Either the kid knew Paul was about to die or he willed it to happen. The kid could also see Anna in her red slip standing in the window. He may have imagined seeing her, but how could he have known exactly what she was wearing? I think the kid and Deacon had the ability to recognize people who were about to die and also see and talk to the dead...for a time. The dead they interacted with were the ones who didn't want to go because they had never really lived. Like the kids mother that was glued to the TV set. She was dead even before she died. Deacon told the kid the first dead person he saw was his own mother. It was the same for the child.

The story was full of red herrings. That indicates poor writing to me. To bad, it might have been a good film if it was not full of inconsistencies and contradictions.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Mikel3 13 years ago

You think what I wrote makes me a troll? Grow up, not everyone is going to agree with you, Juba. You could have just stated that you disagree and why. Or maybe explaining your own opinion is beyond your abilities.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Mikel3 13 years ago

welcome to my ignore list, dork. This is the last I will ever read from you.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] information_police 12 years ago

I think Juba Sniper is the troll here. I agree with what the OP had to say. The movie was not consistent. It played both sides of the mystery with conflicting clues. It didn't follow a consistent set of rules.

But, was this bad writing/directing or was the point of the movie something other than the mystery of whether Anna (and others) were alive or not).

If it was something else, I think the movie played to the psychomystery aspects more than whatever other point it was trying to make.

Other than that, Christina is sure lovely in this.

Nobody's looking for a puppeteer in today's wintry economic climate.

[–] padzok 13 years ago

I think what they wanted to express was the little kid and Deacon seemed to have certain abilities. One was the way the kid made the lights in the school scare Anna. Also, he warned Paul to wear his seat belt. That happened not long before Paul was "killed" in a car accident. Either the kid knew Paul was about to die or he willed it to happen. The kid could also see Anna in her red slip standing in the window. He may have imagined seeing her, but how could he have known exactly what she was wearing? I think the kid and Deacon had the ability to recognize people who were about to die and also see and talk to the dead...for a time. The dead they interacted with were the ones who didn't want to go because they had never really lived. Like the kids mother that was glued to the TV set. She was dead even before she died. Deacon told the kid the first dead person he saw was his own mother. It was the same for the child.

Yeah, I completely agree.

While both interpretations ("she was dead" / "she was alive") are possible, the kid seems a huge clue that this movie has a supernatural setting.

Without the kid, a lot of what Deacon says could be written off as practised lies in his weird plan to convince people that they are already dead before he buries them alive.

There are some other clues that something supernatural is going on. Anna sees herself as dead when she looks in the mirror, and her boyfriend sees her in the bathroom, for example.

But the kid's behaviour, especially the things you mention, are a huge hint that what Deacon says might be true. ie, even when someone is dead in the normal scientific sense, they might still be able to weakly interact with the rest of the world, and strongly interact with a select few who possess special gifts.

[–] Mikel3 13 years ago

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the film, Padzok. I enjoyed reading them.

[–] wonttell99 13 years ago

Although I don't believe in any way that there is a life after death, or that supernatural things exist, the film does have a point in suggesting the brain dies slowly, a lot more slowly than the rest of your body.
So what I think people experience as "near death experiences" is simply what happens while you are dying.
You get all kinds of phenomena caused by the fact that your brain is still functioning but the rest of your organs is dying.
While this may cause some extatic experiences, I think once those other organs have died, the mind probably survives for a lot longer, but without any sensory input.
This must be a horrible time that everyone goes through while they are dying.
The mind (and thus the person) must go through all kinds of experiences (pleasant and otherwise) while this is happening, until the brain finally dies completely.
Just my 2 cents on "the afterlife".
Not at all what we would want it to be, I'm afraid.

[–] Razar_C-1 12 years ago

re: wonttell99
Hi there.
Look, I'm not trying to insult you here, or to piss you off, but I think you've misunderstood some critical aspects of death.

Organs in the body don't die. They can become diseased, or they can cease to function if someone is experiencing catastrophic organ failure, but they don't 'die' as such. When a person dies, their organs cease to function eventually, because they are no longer receiving instructions from the brain. The brain stem is responsible for maintaining certain biological functions -via neuronal synapses, known as action potentials-, such as keeping the heart beating, maintaining breathing through manipulation of the diaphram, etc...

Essentially, organs are dependent on the brain. Without the brain, organs do not function. So what you've said doesn't make a whole lot of sense. As long as the brain continues to function, the organs will also continue to function. In the case of massive amounts of blood loss, the body goes into what's called "Hypovolemic Shock". When this happens, the organs -which need oxygenated blood to keep them functioning- will draw up the vast majority of the remaining blood up inside them, in an attempt to prolong their viability and thus extend the life of the unfortunate person who is bleeding out. Unfortunately, this means that the brain, which also needs oxygenated blood to continue to function, will be left without a renewable source of oxygen, and will thus die, leading to the organs ceasing to function, as the brain is no longer sending them any more "electricity".

Anyway, I hope all that makes sense to you. If it doesn't, feel free to ask whatever, and I'll get back to you. Also, in case you're interested, it is indeed true (in case you've heard the stories) that if a person's head is cut cleanly and quickly from the body, that the brain can "live" for a short while (from as little as a few seconds or so to as many as a few minutes) after the separation. Once the remaining blood either escapes from the skull, or the oxygen in it is all used up, the brain and the person expire. Conversely, organs do not function this same way. A heart will no longer beat, lungs will no longer draw breath, etc... However, if care is taken to ensure that they do not decompose, they can be stored and transplanted into someone who needs them.

Ok, that's my two cents worth. Hope this clarifies things
Peace out

-- Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most...

[–] Razar_C-1 12 years ago

Just a footnote to my previous:
Things like deceased twitching, or chickens running around without heads, are the result of a residual "electrical" charge in their nervous systems. It doesn't always happen, but will sometimes indeed be the case.

For example: If you are about to effect some repairs on your computer, you might start by turning your computer off. Following that, you might then unplug it from the wall. But just to make sure that there is no residual charge running through the circuits, you should always conclude by trying to turn it on. Most of the time, nothing will happen. But every so often, there IS a residual charge there, and even though it's turned off and unplugged from the wall, when you try turning it on, it actually starts to power up for a fraction of a second.

Now, as with the headless chickens, it doesn't happen all the time and we can't really predict when it will happen. It just happens sometimes.

Ok, peace out.

ps: Incidentally, the above computer thing is a good way to make sure that you don't cause any unintentional damage to your computer or its parts when you fiddle around inside it :D

-- Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most...

[–] HenryCW 13 years ago

Actually, the director clarified this in the extras of the Region 1 DVD. In the clip "Delving into the After Life", she confirmed that Anna was not dead, and that Deacon was a psychopath who drugged people and then buried them alive. As "evidence", she mentioned the mist generated by Anna's breath on the mirror (twice), the mention of the drug hydronium bromide, and the appearance of Deacon's white van just before the two accidents that killed Anna and Paul, and so on.

So the only question is whether the scriptwriter and/or director had played fair in providing such evidences as unambiguous "proofs" for this interpretation. The answer appears to be no, and I agree with those posters who said that due to the ineptness in scriptwriting and directing, the "clues" mentioned above were far from convincing.

Even if one accepts that if a drug exists that could cause paralysis and temporary stopping of the pulse, what other drugs did Deacon use on Anna that made her completely impervious to pain and, feel no need of food and water for three days and yet at the same time able to walk and talk like a normal person and even wield a knife?! Since all these are impossibilities in the real world, the viewers can no longer be certain what events they see in the film were real and what were just Anna’s imaginations. In this regard, many scenes had actually been hallucinations of the characters. For example, in one scene, a “dead” old woman told Anna that she was “not ready”. In another, Anna actually escaped from the house and saw her own funeral attended by a number of ghoulish people. At the end, we even see Paul digging up Anna’s grave and rescuing her. Obviously all these scenes did not happen. In a film in which so much consists of hallucinations of characters, I agree that it is reasonable to argue that a scene such as the fogging of the mirror by Anna’s breathing could be due to her imagination (that she was alive) too. The director’s mistake was in selectively regarding certain scenes as definite “clues” that Anna was still alive. In fact, under the “laws” or/and “rules” governing the film, one could equally have made a convincing argument that Anna was dead.

Lastly, I think the director did a rather poor job in her monologue. She tried to justify her chosen interpretation of the movie but seemed to lack conviction or confidence. She looked like a student having to defend a poorly written essay in front of her teacher or college professor.

[–] Mikel3 13 years ago

Thanks, HenryCW. That was a fascinating and well written post about the film. The movie is flawed since, as you pointed out, the director clearing said Anna was dead. I did not know that. Now that I do, I think it's flawed for all the reasons you stated. If they had directed (or wrote) it better and the viewer made the final revelation that she had to alive when she was buried, it would have been much more chilling. But, as you said, strong arguments can be made that she was not "alive". It should have been more clear at the end.

Thanks again for the info.

[–] bloodlust_1997 13 years ago

OK.. How did she look like a corpse and not feel or even bleed? Well our clue was the dropping of the temp dial he did every day. To maintain, how she looked so white was making it so cold the blood did not circulate in her body. Far as not being hungry or thirsty, when your body goes into that state of shock, the last thing your body is worried about is eating and drinking. Why didn't she feel any pain? She numb from the cold and drugs. Why was she so weak and hullicination, both happen when you have lack of food and water, as well start to get closer to freezing to death. Did no one put together the temp drop thing? and notice how she was really white at one point and later on she wasn't so white?

[–] Mikel3 13 years ago

Yeah, I noticed the temperature drop. But it still doesn't explain all you said. You certainly can bleed at low temperatures unless your blood has frozen solid or is close to it, in which case you would be dead. And you do still feel hungry and thirsty at low temperatures. Ask anyone who spends time outdoors in the coldest days of winter. I respect your opinion, but you made a lot of assumptions I don't agree with. For instance, she was often totally nude and did not look like she was freezing or uncomfortable even though the temperature was so low. How could he stop her from reacting to the cold? Maybe he had some mysterious drugs to do that too, but the movie gave us way too much to assume about this and that. Drugs to make her appear dead at the right times, drugs to suppress her feeling cold or hunger and so on. It should have been clearer that was going on. The only drug we saw for sure was the one to make her appear dead at just the right times.

[–] gayla_wright 13 years ago

In my opinion there's much more stacking up on the 'pro dead' side than there is on the 'pro life' side.

These aren't in any sort of order

Pro Dead
Cut does not bleed. There at least would be redness/pin pricks of blood when he stitched her back up.
He seemed to have 'noticed' her when she attended her old piano teachers funeral.
He kept reducing the temp in the mortory. The body could not survive prolong exposure like that. She would have slipped into a coma then died. Her body would have also goosepimpled a natural reaction for the body to try and perserve heat.
She could do without food for three days but not water.
She never went to the toilet (that we know about, that surely would have freaked her out if she was coming round to the idea that she was dead). Granted the funeral director does make some sort of comment about thinking that they're alive purely because they eat and *beep*
She didn't just look white in the mirror, she looked dead. Hallow eyes, blue skin, he would have had to be the best make up artist in the world to try and pull that off.
When she calls (Paul?) her boyfriend he can barely hear her.
She was cold at the funeral, Paul comments on this when he puts the ring on her finger. If she were alive she would have warmed up sufficiently being in the wake room and fully clothed.
Paul pulls her from the coffin then looks back to realise that it was just an illusion. (maybe this was a dream on his part and he had actually had the car accident before he got to the cemetary).
Not to do with Anna but the kids mother looks pretty dead (white hair, gaunt look) either that or she's the oldest mother of an 8yr old I know... this is why she doesn't pick him up from school and it's just that no one has realised he's living with a corpse (it happens suprisingly). On another note I also think the chick was 'dead' and he was just communicating with it telling it not to be scared then burying it. Of course you can argue the other side of that as it isn't really a 'for sure'.
Gas is still in the body, therefore she could easily 'fog' up the mirror by expelling gas. The funeral director probaby wiped it away the first time as he didn't want her to freak and was still trying to persuade her to just deal with the fact she was dead.
He seemed to have been talking to the dead brother of that cop when Anna was not paying attention. You could argue that he's just nuts but then he would have done something more loopy with Anna I would have thought.

Pro Alive (can't be explained in the pro death list)

I could be wrong but don't bodies have to be fixed in some sort of way before buriel? Also isn't there some sort of law in America for this? (as opposed to the UK where I'm from where you can have 'natural' buriels. This process should therefore have killed her if she was still alive. If he had skipped the process wouldn't she have looked a lot worse/smelled during the funeral?
I wasn't really paying attention with the death certificate thing. So was she pronounced dead without a doctor checking for life signs? does that actually happen?! and does it happen sufficiently enough for it then to apparently happen a few days later with her boyfriend. Who also doesn't appear to have autopsy scars. I would have thought an autopsy would have been ordered on both of them.

Overall - bad writing. I was really disappointed with this film and Christina Ricci's acting was horrible.

[–] Mikel3 13 years ago

You made some good points, Gayla. And since it's been pointed out to us that the director commentary revealed that she was in fact alive, the movie was poorly made. As you said in your last line "bad writing". We do differ on one thing, I thought Ricci did a decent acting job with what she had to work with. I also think the film had potential if only it was not such a mess with the false clues. If she was supposed to be alive they should have been consistent with the evidence for it. Even if they wanted to keep the audience guessing till the end. There were ways to do it better.

[–] secondeye-877-487216 12 years ago

The problem with that is you're not accounting for plot holes..

Of which there are many in this film.

[–] jrclements-159-971714 12 years ago

I thought it seemed obvious that she was alive. The way I figured it was that deacon was obviously psychopathic, and as for the boy, once he realised that he had seen anna and was in danger of being found out, he manipulated jack and convinced him he had these special abilities that didn't really exist, and that a lot of dead people thought they weren't really dead, hence him burying the bird while it was still alive. A lot of the evidence throughout the film points to her being alive.

[–] tyzerp 12 years ago

I realize that this is an old post but I just watched this film and I felt the need to put in my two cents. I completely agree with everything else that everybody has said about there being a very great possibility of her being dead but I would also like to point out a couple pro-she was a live points that I noticed.
1. The wound on her head. I noticed as the film progressed it began to heal.
2. Her being cold to the touch when Paul touched her hand is not necessarily impossible. If he injected her with a drug that slows the heart rate and breathing to the point of appearing dead, then the heart would not be able to circulate blood efficiently to her extremities (her hand) and the body would go into a "life or death mode" and just pump blood to the vital organs. Again, this is just a theory.
3. The ending where you can hear the screams of everybody that he has supposedly buried alive. Not very good proof of anything but I think it was just the writers trying giving it a last ditch effort to say she is alive.
4. Her reflection in the mirror. I'm not sure if anybody else saw but her reflection was noticeably "dead" but when the camera would show parts of her body such as her arms or face you can see that she has a distinctly living (sort of) complection. If he gave her hallucinogenic drug and had been telling her that she was dead the whole time, she may have just been seeing what she believed she looked like.
5. She didn't seem to feel hunger or thirst, which I do agree is very odd. This could also be a side-affect of all the drugs simply suppressing her appetite. Very odd though that she didn't seem to get thirsty.

All in all it boils down to poor story telling. There were too many pointless moments trying to give you that "ooh that's creepy" feeling (the bobble head) and there weren't enough concrete clues to draw a solid conclusion. I had the feeling that she was never dead to begin with from the get-go. Liam Neeson is really the only reason I ever had that thought to begin with, he did a good job trying to convey through is acting what the writers couldn't do through the story telling. I actually feel that the actors were let down in this one. For the most part, I felt they all did a good job (with the exception of the kid, which is understandable) even Justin Long who is pretty much always just Justin Long. I wish the story telling would have been better because the premise for this film had some real promise. The one thing I did like about the story, however, was the ending. I'm glad they didn't opt for the Hollywood-like happy ending where everybody is ok and the bad guy gets caught. Anyway, that's just my two cents, take it or leave it.

[–] Mikel3 12 years ago

Tyzerp, thanks for taking the time to add your "Two cents". I enjoyed reading your comments, they were well thought out.

I guess most of us agree that the movie could have been better. At least it did give us a lot of fuel for interesting discussions.

[–] TonyC4444 12 years ago

What solidified it in my mind that she was alive the whole time was the pictures at the end with some eyes open and some closed.

In all I enjoyed the movie but like all of you pointed out it didn't make sense in some areas. Nobody can go three days with out eating or drinking and not be noticably hungry. When he injected her the first time I knew she had to be alive, the blood in a corpse doesn't move so injecting a dead person would do nothing. Didn't keep me from questioning it through the whole movie though.

[–] mikedengler-1 12 years ago

This film reminds me of Shutter Island. That film also plays on our optimism/pessimism bias. Is he sane or insane? In this film, is she alive or dead? Why do those wanted posters say "Dead or Alive"? Why not "Wanted - Alive or Dead"? It sounds like the author of that phrase was indicating a preference for death. Since the author must be a law enforcement officer isn't justice best served by putting the criminal on trial? So, the phrase ought to be be "Wanted - Alive or Dead"?

From Wikipedia: "Is the glass half empty or half full? is a common expression, used rhetorically to indicate that a particular situation could be a cause for optimism (half full) or pessimism (half empty); or as a general litmus test to simply determine an individual's worldview. The purpose of the question is to demonstrate that the situation may be seen in different ways depending on one's point of view and that there may be opportunity in the situation as well as trouble.

This idiom is used to explain how people perceive events and objects. Perception is unique to every individual and is simply one's interpretation of reality. The phrase "Is the glass half empty or half full" can be referred to as a philosophical question."

I'm a "glass half full" kinda guy so Shutter Island's Teddy Daniels (diCaprio) I believe is sane. I also "feel" (optimistically) that Anna (Ricci) is alive. In the scene, at the gas station, Deacon realizes the keys to the mortuary are not in his jacket pocket. He drives back and finds the front door open. He peers outside from the doorway as if suspecting Anna has escaped until he hears a noise inside and closes the front door assured that she is still somewhere inside. No doubt, the "glass half empty" person will point out that Anna unlocked the front door with the keys. If Deacon didn't have the keys with him how did he let himself out the front door to drive to the gas station? Possibly, a deliberate inconsistency to suggest some kind of hallucination by Anna?

[–] p-shopcreations 12 years ago

I just finished watching this, and I missed her car crash scene, and picked up at where she was in the morgue getting her head sewn up. I find it strange that he kept injecting her, and the fact that she destroyed the room was a little strange, also if she was dead, why when he noticed that his keys were missing did he rush back to the funeral home? I agree with everything above that this movie is hard to read, there's enough facts to both prove she could be dead or alive.. I did find it strange that he didn't preform an autopsy on her..

Also at the end when Paul crashed, Deacon was on the side of the road when the accident happened. Then when Paul wakes up on the slab, Deacon tells him he is dead, and sticks him with the embalming tool..

So in conclusion I don't know what the heck to think lol, it was nice to see a naked Christina Ricci though, so the movie wasn't a total waste of my night lol..

[–] mikedengler-1 12 years ago

Even before the first injection Anna is complaining of not feeling anything. So, it's not surprising that she doesn't feel pain when Deacon stiches here head wound and gives her the first injection. If she was alive wouldn't she feel some pain? The pro-alive people will claim that Deacon injected her at the scene of the accident to fool the attending doctor that she was dead and summararily sign her death certificate. But this event was not shown. So, it leaves the door open that she was dead since she mentioned that she couldn't feel anything before we saw the first injection.

[–] Xeokym 12 years ago

When Deacon was stitching up that hole in Anna's head she did not bleed one drop. A living body would bleed at least a little during that procedure even if she was drugged not to feel the pain.

Nah, the thing about the stitches could be totally like that, no bleeding. Take it from someone's who's had a lot of stitches in their life, you don't always bleed. Also, once, my husband got bit in the face by a dog. He had to get his forehead stitched up, plus the tip of his nose stitched back on. I watched the whole thing, there was no blood at all except where he'd bled from the wound itself. Especially if someone is in a bit of shock, what happens is your body rushes all the blood to the core of your body to protect the organs, & often your limbs will go cold (or forehead...) for lack of blood that would normally be going there. It's part of the whole "fight or flight" reaction in the body. On top of that, Anna had been given that drug (I forget the name of it, but there really is a drug like that, made from puffer-fish venom) that made it so she barely had a heartbeat. It was so faint she couldn't find her pulse. If she was in a state like that, it's even less likely she would bleed. IRL though, she'd likely be in a coma & not even able to sit up let alone walk around & converse casually.

She also didn't seen to care that she was totally naked in front of Deacon, you'd think she would have been embarrassed instead of so comfortable like that.

Well she was dead (at least she believed she was), what was he gonna do, rape her & get her pregnant? She didn't give a crap because she believed she was a corpse.

The more I think about it the more PO-ed I get that the writers were not consistent. Yes, it's good to make a movie people need to think about after the end titles, but at least be fair with your clues.

Very well put, I concur.

I think what they wanted to express was the little kid and Deacon seemed to have certain abilities. One was the way the kid made the lights in the school scare Anna. Also, he warned Paul to wear his seat belt. That happened not long before Paul was "killed" in a car accident. Either the kid knew Paul was about to die or he willed it to happen.

Either that, or he knew what Deacon was going to do...remember at the viewing, Paul gulps down a ton of alcohol, as well as being extremely distraught. Deacon tells him, "Maybe she IS still alive...not that you have enough time" or something to that effect. Deacon knew Paul would drive off in a drunken panic, thinking that he had precious few minutes to dig Anna out of the ground, and likely have an accident on the way. We then see Paul with oncoming lights, & then we see Deacon & Jack sitting in the car alongside the road. I'm guessing we're supposed to assume that Deacon got to Paul before the ambulances arrived, and shot Paul up with the zombie drug, so when the EMS got there they would declare Paul dead. Maybe because Jack was under Deacon's wing, he knew of Deacon's plan? Just speculating.

The kid could also see Anna in her red slip standing in the window. He may have imagined seeing her, but how could he have known exactly what she was wearing?

But remember, Deacon intentionally pulled the curtains back from the window & ALLOWED Jack to see Anna. That way, Deacon could convince Jack even more of his ability to see dead people.

I think the kid and Deacon had the ability to recognize people who were about to die and also see and talk to the dead...for a time. The dead they interacted with were the ones who didn't want to go because they had never really lived. Like the kids mother that was glued to the TV set. She was dead even before she died. Deacon told the kid the first dead person he saw was his own mother. It was the same for the child.

Right, or at least that is what the filmmakers wanted the audience to think. Which was annoying, because there were so many other things that indicated that the people were really alive, or Deacon was just "conversing" with corpses in his own mind, like with the cop's brother's corpse.

The story was full of red herrings. That indicates poor writing to me. To bad, it might have been a good film if it was not full of inconsistencies and contradictions.

I couldn't agree more.

»«ëÕ|{¥(V)
I can't understand your crazy moon language.

[–] snexyagentklark 12 years ago

I'm a student at a mortuary college and this movie had a ton of loop-holes. I kept telling my boyfriend how unrealistic it was, but I can cut Hollywood a little slack because most everyday people don't know the processes the body goes through after death occurs. When Anna first wakes up the the embalming room, I couldn't believe she still had her dress on. Realistically, paramedics or a medical examiner would have removed her clothing to give the body a proper examination. They just dont feel for a pulse in your neck & say, "Yep,she's dead.Wheel her on out to the funeral home." Deacon mentioned that Anna had been dead for 8 hours.If that were the case rigor mortis(stiffening of the body) & hypostasis(settling of the blood) would have set in.

Another thing that really annoyed me was where the embalming table was placed in the room.They put it in the middle of the dang room! The embalming machine needs to be within 2 to 3 feet away from the table MAX and there needs to be a drain. Deacon also didn't suture the mouth shut on the police officer's brother.

10 Things I Love About You:)

[–] Royalcourtier 10 years ago

A well made film gives clues that support either hypothesis, but are ultimately consistent with only one correct solution. This film carelessly gives clues that are inconsistent. While the film is badly crafted in that way, I believe the clues do tend to support the notion that Anna was dead all along.

[–] FranksDaughter13 9 years ago

Epinephrine injection prevents bleeding during stitching of wounds.

Wisdom comes when one learns from one's mistakes

(aka LEXYLADYJAX)