since it was established that bites (the old farm owner) and scratches (the boyfriend) can turn people into creatures, why didn't she turn as well? she had (if i remember correctly) bites and scratches from both her infected boyfriend AND the creature itself, in fact the creature scratched her neck deep enough to cause blood to flow.
sharedid you watch the end of the film? don't want to say to much as it will spoil it for others but if you go back and watch the last 30 seconds.mind you i think your post has pretty much spoilt the movie for anybody who hasn't seen it!!!
shareToo true, I hate dicks with obnoxious spoiler titles that ruin something someone might have enjoyed.
But anyway, SPOILERS AHOY, though anyone reading this to this point probably already knows: the boyfriend and the farmhand were bitten/scratched by the monster itself(whom I'm going to refer to on this board as NOTsferatu), whereas Sarah was bitten and scratched by the farmer and her boyfriend. This movie defines no infection rules as far as that goes, so it's entirely possible that the creature itself had to infect people and it's... offspring, for lack of a better term, could not.
Also, as blackestofsmiths also said, if you watch the very end of the film, she stakes the creature in the heart. Modern vampire stories avoid this aspect, but in the original Dracula, killing the head vampire stops the transformation in his victims if they haven't already turned.
That said, Sarah couldn't have possibly known and cut off her finger under the desperate survival instinct to cut off the infection if possible.
People seem to be judging this movie harshly on 2 factors:
a) that this film follows rules set in stone by EVERY OTHER infection/vampire film.
b) People who don't think clearly or make all the correct, smartest moves don't exist. If you're a typical, flawed human being in a horror film, then the film sucks and is inaccurate.
To these people, I say: Shut up. It's a movie.
To these people, I say: Shut up. It's a movie.
But anyway, SPOILERS AHOY, though anyone reading this to this point probably already knows: the boyfriend and the farmhand were bitten/scratched by the monster itself(whom I'm going to refer to on this board as NOTsferatu), whereas Sarah was bitten and scratched by the farmer and her boyfriend. This movie defines no infection rules as far as that goes, so it's entirely possible that the creature itself had to infect people and it's... offspring, for lack of a better term, could not.
Modern vampire stories avoid this aspect, but in the original Dracula, killing the head vampire stops the transformation in his victims if they haven't already turned.
the boyfriend and the farmhand were bitten/scratched by the monster itself
R.I.P. Rick Ducommun and Tony Longoshare
How can this film possibly get ruined? It couldn't be any worse.
shareIn my opinion the very last scene (at dawn, she narrows her eyes at the first sun and black) was intended to leave a free interpretation if she was infected or not. Personally I expected that she would turn into dust.
shareYup, that's my take also. Very cool.
shareIf she was infected, the direct rays of the sun would've turned her to ash even faster than the light bulb turned her boyfriend.
shareIf she was infected, the direct rays of the sun would've turned her to ash even faster than the light bulb turned her boyfriend.
Yes - it's left open, if only barely.
I like to think that she shut her eyes in anticipation of turning to dust, then didn't. This smart, brave protagonist was very likeable to me, and I wanted her to live (and become a bad-ass vampire hunter; she's halfway there already). But it could go either way.
"This is a problem that requires two minds with but a single malt."
Yeah, agree with the ending being left open to interpretation and also agree that the protagonist was very likeable. She really carried the movie for me.
R.I.P. Rick Ducommun and Tony Longoshare
In the last 10 seconds of the film Sarah is staring at the sun as it rises, she squints, but just before that her eyes turn purple. You have to be looking for it to catch it, but I doubt that was put in there for no reason.
She's infected. It's occurring at a slower rate because she took measures to protect herself like cutting off her finger, but it looks like ultimately that wasn't enough. Maybe part of the infection in her bloodstream had spread beyond her finger by the time she cut it off?
She'll probably only last a little while longer before showing the same behavior the others did.
but just before that her eyes turn purple.
R.I.P. Rick Ducommun and Tony Longoshare
Here's some screenshots I pulled from Netflix.
Green eyes: http://i.imgur.com/R9gjFTf.jpg
Purple: http://i.imgur.com/fhPdvUO.jpg
Wow. I didn't notice that at all, but I wonder if that was done deliberately?
R.I.P. Rick Ducommun and Tony Longoshare
I just watched that last scene again and you're right, you can see her eyes changing color as the sun rises, but I'm still not sure what to make of it. Why purple
Just before the farmer turns to dust when she turns the full blast of the tractor lights onto him, his eyes go red and then seal over. So I don't know what the purple signifies.
I was watching the whites of her eyes and not her irises before, because the farmers whole eyes turn red, but for her its just the irises that change color.
R.I.P. Rick Ducommun and Tony Longoshare
The way I took it was that whatever this disease is, it takes a little time to get to the stage that we saw throughout the movie, especially with her because she took measures to protect herself from infection like amputating her finger, which I can only assume slowed it down drastically.
If I were to guess I'd say she's still transitioning and will fully turn later, or maybe since she didn't get the full infection she's merely carrying the disease. Regardless, I think a cool idea for a sequel would be the events after she gets back to civilization, where she incidentally infects many more people.
especially with her because she took measures to protect herself from infection like amputating her finger, which I can only assume slowed it down drastically.
R.I.P. Rick Ducommun and Tony Longoshare
I think it signifies that the light hitting her eyes is changing and some light-eyed people (maybe most of us) have changeable eye color depending on what it's reflecting.
This is not a dramatic difference. I don't think it's an effect that was added.
"This is a problem that requires two minds with but a single malt."