The first time I saw this movie (oh lord, yes, I’ve seen it twice- but against my will) I thought that the girl had given birth (accounting for the bloody thighs) and that the stolen baby was hers. The gun? Well, I assumed, yes, that she’d been hiding it inside of her. On second viewing, I realized that the baby must have been her little sister because of the family photo (which they found in a jar of dirty water? what is that, a primitive snow globe?). So what’s the deal? The sheriff didn’t seem to recognize her corpse, but he and other aspects of the movie were disturbingly sexual, unlike the original. Are we to believe that she was sexually assaulted, maybe even let go in exchange for a sexual favour? Has anyone read anything about this (in an interview, maybe, or DVD extras)? Any theories? I know that they may do a prequel, but I can’t wait that long.
I as well didn’t understand ANY of that story.
But that movie still made me very freaked out. I had to see it twice, once against my will as well. :eek:
Oh, the sheriff recognized her, all right. Notice that he takes the revolver and puts it right into his ankle holster, which is just the right size for that make and model of gun.
They never spell out what happened to her, and they really don’t need to. You’re better off imagining a horrible shapeless something-that-happened; makes it more gruesome.
I was under the impression she had either been assaulted/injured in her genital area, or started menstruation during her ordeal. The baby was not hers (or at least not born at that point) because of its presence in the photo and the fact that when Erin saw it, it seemed to be considerably older than a newborn.