Spoiler galore, if you have not seen this film you might want to consider not reading this as the film is a mystery of sorts but I thought I'd explain it as I know some people have not fully understood what it all was so without further ado...
It is meant to be a little confusing, we are not really meant to know if Ricci's character is dead or not until the end.
She is alive, Liam Neeson does not play a guy who can speak to dead people and prepare them to go to heaven or whatever may be after.
He plays a serial killer who enjoys making his victim believe that they are dead already when he kills them, he gets off on that, and he there's nothing more enjoyable for him than to bury people alive and have them die that way. He targets sad people who he sees unworthy of living because they don't appreciate life.
He made the little boy an apprentice of his because he had seen Ricci very much alive, and perhaps also wanted someone to carry on his legacy once he was gone.
There is a scene where the little boy buries a little chicken alive, that's how most serial killers start out. Not by burying chickens alive of course but by killing animals.
Justin Long was in the end murdered because he knew too much, even then Liam Neeson wanted to make him think that he was dead so he could go through his 'game' but he wasn't able to fool him so he made that process short and just offed him real quick (that big ol needle he put in him).
It's a interesting story, but not as intriguing as it should have been and even though I like Christina Ricci generally she isn't all that good here, and her character is kind of dumb. But overall I kind of enjoy it 5.5/10
Can't find a movie or TV show? Login to create it.
Want to rate or add this item to a list?
Not a member?
Reply by HikariWS
on June 8, 2022 at 10:51 AM
I see that most ppl consider she was alive and even director said it on DVD commentary.
But it seems odd to me. Eliot could have achieved it a couple times, to lead ppl into accident and get them into the funeral home still alive. But it's tough to believe he'd be able to do it so many times as the scene with the pictures shows. He'd eventually be found, that accidents were faked.
The "issue" on the movie is that too much evidences are ambiguous due to being fiction. Inside the movie's world, are ghosts able to control their dead body, or are they imagining it? In example, on the scene that the cop goes see his brother, Eliot talks to the dead body and it's not moving, so would Eliot be the only one seeing the ghost talk and move?
There's also the scene where Anna sees the old woman standing, she was most clearly a ghost, because a living person wouldn't stand like that. And it's troubling to have Eliot be able to fake the death of 2 ppl inside a few days and have them both alive together on the room and they still never talk to each other while they're both able to stand up. I guess that the woman had accepted she was dead and was leaving to the after life. If it is so, then in the movie's world recently dead ppl remain on their body and deny being dead and that blocks them from going to the after life, and if they remain denying they become ghosts and go haunting houses, etc. So Eliot helps them to accept their death and be in piece so that it doesn't happen.
It's also implausible he'd fool the kid that he sees dead ppl and bring him to work there, because soon enough the kid would figure what Eliot was doing and warn the cops. The kid also seems to be attracted by death before he starts talking with Eliot and even have trouble figuring if what he sees is indeed dead or not. In the beginning he tells Anna he thinks the chicken is dead and she shows it's not, I guess maybe due to seeing dead ppl looking alive he confused it, which led him into taking the living chicken and mistakenly burying it alive later.
It's disgusting how Eliot talks to Paul in the end, but then there's the scene where he's hit and becomes calm after that, then somehow "imagines" meeting with Anna, and then he's on the funeral house. I feel implausible that Eliot would be able to lead him into having the accident, in a way he's remain alive, once again get a person mistakenly declared dead, and also Paul dreams meeting Anna. (It would be 3 ppl in a few days!) There's the early scene that Eliot keeps looking at Anna as if he was choosing her as his next target, and Paul would be another target, but I believe it's indeed that Eliot is able to have premonition of ppl who'll soon die. The kid also rejects the ride and warns Paul to fasten his seatbelt, suggesting that he also had the premonition. Would both Eliot and the kid be serial killers toying with their targets, or are they indeed having the same premonition and are unable to change ppl's fate? The kid would still be trying to warn while Eliot on his experience had stopped to do so.
Again, it's complicated because some evidences bump on fiction which may be whatever the writer wants. Why would Eliot lock the door and be worried when he notices he forgot the key, if she was dead? Was she indeed alive, or is she as ghost indeed able to open the door and leave? There's the scene when she makes a mess on the room and he complains, but it's not shown he cleaning it. Would it have been an illusion, and Eliot be emotionally affected by it even though eventually the illusion vanishes? When Anna tries to attack Eliot and he allows her and she doesn't do it, was she unable to harm him due do kindness, or are ghosts unable to harm living ppl and Eliot knows it therefore he wasn't afraid?
There are the 2 scenes when Anna's breath fogs a mirror and it troubles Eliot. But we can also consider it as another illusion, and he attempting to avoid them because they lead ghosts into increasing their belief they're alive.
Examining all the given evidences on either possibility, I consider more coherent that the evidences that she's alive are due to ghosts having illusions they're still alive and Eliot being affected by these illusions.
Reply by aiace68
on October 12, 2023 at 10:25 AM
I like Dan_Tebasco's comment, but I disagree with him about the meaning of the film. In my opinion both Ricci and Paul were really dead...otherwise on explains how Neeson always makes them look dead to the coroner. The child also talks to the dead, just like Neeson, but unfortunately the director does not develop the character well. For example, was the child's mother dead? In my opinion yes, but then who was taking care of him? Who was feeding and clothing him? In the finale that Paul also has an accident, that he also dies and of all the funeral homes, he ends up right there is a bit of an exaggeration....