The Backwoods (2006) Movie Review

John Boorman’s “Deliverance” gave birth to a new subgenre of films featuring middle class white men who desire the stoicism of life in the wild and of a more direct conflict for survival outside of the office cubicles and golf courses. It also established the genre’s archetypal characters: the posturing weekend warrior outdoorsman who talks a good game lifted from Reader’s Digest versions of “Walden”, and the indecisive, liberal leaning hero for whom the adventure plays as a bildungsroman towards his regression into murder. Both of these archetypes are front and center in Koldo Serra’s debut film “The Backwoods” with an extra dollop of Peckinpah and Polanski just to spice up the proceedings.

Serra’s film is set in 1978 and is about two couples traveling to a remote house in the woods of Northern Spain. The house is owned by Paul(Gary Oldman)who sees himself as a kind of Hemingway figure, leaving London to fix up the rustic cottage and go back to hunting and fishing rather than dollars and cents. He’s joined by the timid Norman(Paddy Considine), who is completely out of his element away from the city. Norman and his wife Lucy(Virginie Ledoyen) are having marital troubles that seem to stem from the loss of a child. Paul doesn’t have trouble with his wife(?) Isabel(Aitana Sanchez-Gijon) since he’s the kind of guy who answers to no one. (NOTE: To every filmmaker working today, this tale of marital discord and sexual power shifts needs to be accompanied onscreen by ©1962 Roman Polanski,Jakub Goldberg,& Jerzy Skolimowski since it all stems from their film “Knife in the Water”.)

Back to the film. Nobody but Paul seems to be very happy to be out in the woods. Least of all Lucy, who comes off as very unsympathetic and manipulative. In one scene, Paul and Norman are having an ice cold conversation with some locals in a bar when Lucy walks in to fetch them, her t-shurt soaking wet from the water fountain outside and the headlights most definitely ON. She seems to enjoy watching her husband squirm as the brutish locals stare at her hungrily. Ledoyen is good in the role, but quite honestly, the character is a total bitch.

The next morning, Paul takes Norman out hunting and kills a rabbit to show him how men are supposed to live. This seems to disgust Norman but not as much as what they find in what seems to be an abandoned barn in the middle of the forest. Hearing some music and a faint whimpering, Paul opens a small door and finds a deformed and frightened feral girl cowering in the corner with a water dish and dirty doll.

Deciding to take the girl out of there and to the local authorities, the pair set themselves up for terrible trouble since it seems some local folks are very angry that the girl has gone “missing”. What transpires is a night of bloodshed and brute survival as Norman has to “man up” in order to protect Lucy and Isabel from rape and to bring the child to safety.

Now, first of all, what the hell is Gary Oldman doing in a Filmax production? He’s one of the greatest actors in the world today and we find him in the woods of Northern Spain working with a first time director in a role that doesn’t exactly use his talents to their fullest? He’s GREAT in the role(and appears to speak fluent Spanish), but “Paul” is just not a character who is going to be remembered when the Oscar Clip is played at Oldman’s AFI Lifetime Achievement ceremony.

At least he’s surrounded by some other fine actors including the new Gary Oldman, Paddy Considine. If you don’t know Considine’s work you are seriously missing out on some of the best acting of the last 10 years. The man has given one great performance after another most recently in Shane Meadow’s bloody revenge pic, “Dead Man’s Shoes” and the really great “My Summer of Love” with Emily Blunt.

Serra is a confident and strong director who gives “The Backwoods” the kind of striking and controlled style found more often in the work of more mature filmmakers. Nothing is done for flash or excitement, and everything is placed for specific effect. The film is set in 1977 and this isn’t something arbitrary. It creates the atmosphere of a story having occurred years ago to some people for whom the events may now be just a bad memory. There is a wonderful freedom from the technology which hampers horror/suspense filmmakers today since one cell phone call would take care of most problems in a split second.

But the 1978 setting mostly allows Serra to drift into a certain genre mood, evoking the films of Bunuel and Sergio Martino and to allow for the dreaminess of Robert Altman’s “McCabe and Mrs. Miller” to wash over the film with a pair of melancholy tunes from Leonard Cohen. The violence, when it comes, is brutal and direct rather than the stylized ballets of Peckinpah. “Straw Dogs” makes its way into the film through Considine’s character, Norman, who eventually wields the shotgun with a cold blooded reserve the borders on madness.

Technically the film is very well done, I just wonder if the international flavor of the production with its funding from Spanish, French and English backers may have compromised the script. Something may have been lost in the translation from Spanish to French to English since the film has ambiguities all over. Much of the story is only hinted at by Serra whose screenplay resembles the cryptic writing of Harold Pinter. It’s questionable as to why Serra would want so many things to be ambigious since this doesn’t really intensify the drama as it does in Pinter’s own work but just leaves you scratching your head in confusion.

I mean the story is as simple as they come, but everything seems to be left slightly unfinished, as though, Serra was hoping that actors like Oldman, Considine, and Ledoyen would be able to color within the lines. As the film stands, there’s lots of questions left open in a way that does not inspire deep thought but rather a sense of incompleteness, like a movie you fell asleep watching on late night TV and were never able to find again. That said, the film is very suspenseful and maybe the sense of disappointment comes more from the fact that Serra is so good at creating tension that the lack of a strong resolution just feels wrong. Regardless, it’s definitely an auspicious debut film from Koldo Serra.

Koldo Serra (director) / Jon Sagalá, Koldo Serra (screenplay)
CAST: Gary Oldman … Paul
Paddy Considine … Norman
Aitana Sánchez-Gijón … Isabel
Virginie Ledoyen … Lucy
Lluís Homar … Paco
Yaiza Esteve … Nerea


Buy The Backwoods on DVD



  • brian

    I saw a speculation on another posting, which I think is correct, that suggested the main “bad” guy was actually the girl’s father via one of his daughters. One of his sons (?) who was accompanying him in the woods let slip that the mother was one their sisters. The incest would explain both the deformity as well as give a stronger reason as to why she was hidden away in secrret.

    Question…what did Paddy say at the very end of the movie to his wife as he walked toward the car?

  • Siggi

    That man at the end was either the girl’s uncle or father. At any rate, one of the brothers was the father. Her deformity was obviously from incest. That is why she was kept hidden away. The sister was either raped by the rapist, or more likely, gave in to consentual sex with the older, most sophisticated brother who held her at the end. As for why she was shot, that is less clear. The man who shot her was already grieving over the loss of a child. He snapped when he realized that she was the product of incest. Most likely, his wife had a miscarriage and that is what strained the relationship. So when he saw that a girl like that could be brought into the world and he could not hold together his relationship because of a lost child, despite his efforts, he shot the “abomination” who symbolized his own failure because she was born despite the odds. She was a wasted desecration of fertility that he could not attain in “decent relations” with his bitter wife. Her ultimate rejection in the bedroom at the end pushed him over the edge.

    This film, while flawed, is a refreshing escape from formulaic Hollywood pap that is so stiflingly pervasive these days. But the fact that none of you film buffs could figure it out is just a testament as to why Hollywood does not take chances. American audiences are simply not very sophisticated because very few people actually bother to read good literature, plays, or screen plays anymore. It’s a sad state of affairs and Hollywood is partly to blame, along with the other mass media dumbed-down news outlets, etc. Americans are not genetically stupid. We are just being systematically dumbed down by our environment in a country that denigrates intellectualism and scorns what it does not understand. Bush is the epitomy of this trend. We elected a dunce to rule us because we were conditioned to be cash cows by corporate interests and the ruling elite that want to use our prowess and economic muscle to start a New World Order. Ironically, most of these “master mind” bankers in power are Europeans, themselves. They tried their bid for power and failed under the NAZIs and now they have nearly achieved success with us (courtesy of our Federal Reserve, which they own and use to control Washington DC). Unfortunately, we are the future of the planetary population as a whole: dull, self-absorbed, and addicted to immediate pay-offs and pleasures. In short: tuned out to life’s true pleasures–such as good conversation for the sake of conversation, philosophy, literature, a religious belief system that is founded on a higher form of love or selfless nonjudgmental devotion to a higher source of Universal Intelligence, etc.–and instead we find ourselves plugged in to what Pink Floyd so aptly calls, “The Machine.” I am no exception. Last night I watched Gladiators and completely enjoyed watching buff Amazonian women launch themselves at each other 40 feet in the air with their spandexed crotches pointed at the camera.

    And that was hard to confess. Ugh.

    • Erik

      Siggi,

      While I grant to you that your understanding of the story is very astute, I have to question your basic powers of observation. Watch the ending scene again. He didn’t shoot the girl.

      1. The lightning is a trick for the audience to make you think he shot, but he didn’t.
      2. The man’s expression clearly shows a kind of relief.
      3. Her eyes are still clearly moving as he tells her it will be alright
      4. Her right arm is still turning the crank on the musical toy
      5. Her hands are clearly moving just before they move to the car – and these last three are not just poor child acting. Even a kid knows how to play dead, and considering the acting job that girl did throughout the rest of the movie, it’s inconceivable that she would botch this.
      6. The expression on Paul’s wife’s face and the man clearly indicate that he didn’t shoot, although the situation is very serious, they did not just witness him shoot a defenseless child.

      Had he shot her I might agree with your assessment of the plot. Given that he didn’t, I would say that he simply took pity on her and recognized that nothing more should be done.

      But what do I know. I’m just a brainwashed American plugged into The Machine feeding the New World Order run by European bankers…

      • Erik

        (By the way, I mean Norman, not Paul. I’m terrible with names.)

      • Erik

        (By the way, I mean Norman, not Paul. I’m terrible with names.)

      • Erik

        (By the way, I mean Norman, not Paul. I’m terrible with names.)

      • j tills

        He does shoot the gun but he misses…

        • j tills

          because he already used up both shots in the gun

    • Erik

      Siggi,

      While I grant to you that your understanding of the story is very astute, I have to question your basic powers of observation. Watch the ending scene again. He didn’t shoot the girl.

      1. The lightning is a trick for the audience to make you think he shot, but he didn’t.
      2. The man’s expression clearly shows a kind of relief.
      3. Her eyes are still clearly moving as he tells her it will be alright
      4. Her right arm is still turning the crank on the musical toy
      5. Her hands are clearly moving just before they move to the car – and these last three are not just poor child acting. Even a kid knows how to play dead, and considering the acting job that girl did throughout the rest of the movie, it’s inconceivable that she would botch this.
      6. The expression on Paul’s wife’s face and the man clearly indicate that he didn’t shoot, although the situation is very serious, they did not just witness him shoot a defenseless child.

      Had he shot her I might agree with your assessment of the plot. Given that he didn’t, I would say that he simply took pity on her and recognized that nothing more should be done.

      But what do I know. I’m just a brainwashed American plugged into The Machine feeding the New World Order run by European bankers…

    • Erik

      Siggi,

      While I grant to you that your understanding of the story is very astute, I have to question your basic powers of observation. Watch the ending scene again. He didn’t shoot the girl.

      1. The lightning is a trick for the audience to make you think he shot, but he didn’t.
      2. The man’s expression clearly shows a kind of relief.
      3. Her eyes are still clearly moving as he tells her it will be alright
      4. Her right arm is still turning the crank on the musical toy
      5. Her hands are clearly moving just before they move to the car – and these last three are not just poor child acting. Even a kid knows how to play dead, and considering the acting job that girl did throughout the rest of the movie, it’s inconceivable that she would botch this.
      6. The expression on Paul’s wife’s face and the man clearly indicate that he didn’t shoot, although the situation is very serious, they did not just witness him shoot a defenseless child.

      Had he shot her I might agree with your assessment of the plot. Given that he didn’t, I would say that he simply took pity on her and recognized that nothing more should be done.

      But what do I know. I’m just a brainwashed American plugged into The Machine feeding the New World Order run by European bankers…

  • Siggi

    That man at the end was either the girl’s uncle or father. At any rate, one of the brothers was the father. Her deformity was obviously from incest. That is why she was kept hidden away. The sister was either raped by the rapist, or more likely, gave in to consentual sex with the older, most sophisticated brother who held her at the end. As for why she was shot, that is less clear. The man who shot her was already grieving over the loss of a child. He snapped when he realized that she was the product of incest. Most likely, his wife had a miscarriage and that is what strained the relationship. So when he saw that a girl like that could be brought into the world and he could not hold together his relationship because of a lost child, despite his efforts, he shot the “abomination” who symbolized his own failure because she was born despite the odds. She was a wasted desecration of fertility that he could not attain in “decent relations” with his bitter wife. Her ultimate rejection in the bedroom at the end pushed him over the edge.

    This film, while flawed, is a refreshing escape from formulaic Hollywood pap that is so stiflingly pervasive these days. But the fact that none of you film buffs could figure it out is just a testament as to why Hollywood does not take chances. American audiences are simply not very sophisticated because very few people actually bother to read good literature, plays, or screen plays anymore. It’s a sad state of affairs and Hollywood is partly to blame, along with the other mass media dumbed-down news outlets, etc. Americans are not genetically stupid. We are just being systematically dumbed down by our environment in a country that denigrates intellectualism and scorns what it does not understand. Bush is the epitomy of this trend. We elected a dunce to rule us because we were conditioned to be cash cows by corporate interests and the ruling elite that want to use our prowess and economic muscle to start a New World Order. Ironically, most of these “master mind” bankers in power are Europeans, themselves. They tried their bid for power and failed under the NAZIs and now they have nearly achieved success with us (courtesy of our Federal Reserve, which they own and use to control Washington DC). Unfortunately, we are the future of the planetary population as a whole: dull, self-absorbed, and addicted to immediate pay-offs and pleasures. In short: tuned out to life’s true pleasures–such as good conversation for the sake of conversation, philosophy, literature, a religious belief system that is founded on a higher form of love or selfless nonjudgmental devotion to a higher source of Universal Intelligence, etc.–and instead we find ourselves plugged in to what Pink Floyd so aptly calls, “The Machine.” I am no exception. Last night I watched Gladiators and completely enjoyed watching buff Amazonian women launch themselves at each other 40 feet in the air with their spandexed crotches pointed at the camera.

    And that was hard to confess. Ugh.

  • Siggi

    That man at the end was either the girl’s uncle or father. At any rate, one of the brothers was the father. Her deformity was obviously from incest. That is why she was kept hidden away. The sister was either raped by the rapist, or more likely, gave in to consentual sex with the older, most sophisticated brother who held her at the end. As for why she was shot, that is less clear. The man who shot her was already grieving over the loss of a child. He snapped when he realized that she was the product of incest. Most likely, his wife had a miscarriage and that is what strained the relationship. So when he saw that a girl like that could be brought into the world and he could not hold together his relationship because of a lost child, despite his efforts, he shot the “abomination” who symbolized his own failure because she was born despite the odds. She was a wasted desecration of fertility that he could not attain in “decent relations” with his bitter wife. Her ultimate rejection in the bedroom at the end pushed him over the edge.

    This film, while flawed, is a refreshing escape from formulaic Hollywood pap that is so stiflingly pervasive these days. But the fact that none of you film buffs could figure it out is just a testament as to why Hollywood does not take chances. American audiences are simply not very sophisticated because very few people actually bother to read good literature, plays, or screen plays anymore. It’s a sad state of affairs and Hollywood is partly to blame, along with the other mass media dumbed-down news outlets, etc. Americans are not genetically stupid. We are just being systematically dumbed down by our environment in a country that denigrates intellectualism and scorns what it does not understand. Bush is the epitomy of this trend. We elected a dunce to rule us because we were conditioned to be cash cows by corporate interests and the ruling elite that want to use our prowess and economic muscle to start a New World Order. Ironically, most of these “master mind” bankers in power are Europeans, themselves. They tried their bid for power and failed under the NAZIs and now they have nearly achieved success with us (courtesy of our Federal Reserve, which they own and use to control Washington DC). Unfortunately, we are the future of the planetary population as a whole: dull, self-absorbed, and addicted to immediate pay-offs and pleasures. In short: tuned out to life’s true pleasures–such as good conversation for the sake of conversation, philosophy, literature, a religious belief system that is founded on a higher form of love or selfless nonjudgmental devotion to a higher source of Universal Intelligence, etc.–and instead we find ourselves plugged in to what Pink Floyd so aptly calls, “The Machine.” I am no exception. Last night I watched Gladiators and completely enjoyed watching buff Amazonian women launch themselves at each other 40 feet in the air with their spandexed crotches pointed at the camera.

    And that was hard to confess. Ugh.

  • Siggi

    That man at the end was either the girl’s uncle or father. At any rate, one of the brothers was the father. Her deformity was obviously from incest. That is why she was kept hidden away. The sister was either raped by the rapist, or more likely, gave in to consentual sex with the older, most sophisticated brother who held her at the end. As for why she was shot, that is less clear. The man who shot her was already grieving over the loss of a child. He snapped when he realized that she was the product of incest. Most likely, his wife had a miscarriage and that is what strained the relationship. So when he saw that a girl like that could be brought into the world and he could not hold together his relationship because of a lost child, despite his efforts, he shot the “abomination” who symbolized his own failure because she was born despite the odds. She was a wasted desecration of fertility that he could not attain in “decent relations” with his bitter wife. Her ultimate rejection in the bedroom at the end pushed him over the edge.

    This film, while flawed, is a refreshing escape from formulaic Hollywood pap that is so stiflingly pervasive these days. But the fact that none of you film buffs could figure it out is just a testament as to why Hollywood does not take chances. American audiences are simply not very sophisticated because very few people actually bother to read good literature, plays, or screen plays anymore. It’s a sad state of affairs and Hollywood is partly to blame, along with the other mass media dumbed-down news outlets, etc. Americans are not genetically stupid. We are just being systematically dumbed down by our environment in a country that denigrates intellectualism and scorns what it does not understand. Bush is the epitomy of this trend. We elected a dunce to rule us because we were conditioned to be cash cows by corporate interests and the ruling elite that want to use our prowess and economic muscle to start a New World Order. Ironically, most of these “master mind” bankers in power are Europeans, themselves. They tried their bid for power and failed under the NAZIs and now they have nearly achieved success with us (courtesy of our Federal Reserve, which they own and use to control Washington DC). Unfortunately, we are the future of the planetary population as a whole: dull, self-absorbed, and addicted to immediate pay-offs and pleasures. In short: tuned out to life’s true pleasures–such as good conversation for the sake of conversation, philosophy, literature, a religious belief system that is founded on a higher form of love or selfless nonjudgmental devotion to a higher source of Universal Intelligence, etc.–and instead we find ourselves plugged in to what Pink Floyd so aptly calls, “The Machine.” I am no exception. Last night I watched Gladiators and completely enjoyed watching buff Amazonian women launch themselves at each other 40 feet in the air with their spandexed crotches pointed at the camera.

    And that was hard to confess. Ugh.

    • Erik

      Siggi,

      While I grant to you that your understanding of the story is very astute, I have to question your basic powers of observation. Watch the ending scene again. He didn’t shoot the girl.

      1. The lightning is a trick for the audience to make you think he shot, but he didn’t.
      2. The man’s expression clearly shows a kind of relief.
      3. Her eyes are still clearly moving as he tells her it will be alright
      4. Her right arm is still turning the crank on the musical toy
      5. Her hands are clearly moving just before they move to the car – and these last three are not just poor child acting. Even a kid knows how to play dead, and considering the acting job that girl did throughout the rest of the movie, it’s inconceivable that she would botch this.
      6. The expression on Paul’s wife’s face and the man clearly indicate that he didn’t shoot, although the situation is very serious, they did not just witness him shoot a defenseless child.

      Had he shot her I might agree with your assessment of the plot. Given that he didn’t, I would say that he simply took pity on her and recognized that nothing more should be done.

      But what do I know. I’m just a brainwashed American plugged into The Machine feeding the New World Order run by European bankers…

      • Erik

        (By the way, I mean Norman, not Paul. I’m terrible with names.)

  • Nicole

    The older man (the leader of the group) is the feral child’s father. He impregnated his sister, whose name is Nerea (the same name given to the child), either through rape or consensual sex, it really doesn’t matter. The child is born with deformed hands and represents the evil committed by her father/uncle and mother (who may be dead). When the man is trying to explain the situation to Paul in the woods, he says that sometimes the righteous need to suffer for the actions of the sinners, indicating that the child is suffering in a Christlike fashion for the sins of the father. She is both righteous and innocent as a child, and a frightening and cursed reminder of the effects of evil. That is why she must be kept out of sight. Check out the story “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas” by Ursula K.LeGuin; similar ideas are expressed. At the end, Norman shoots the child not because he snapped, but out of pity for her and also for her father – vile as he may be. Look at the expressions on their faces as the camera shifts from one man to the other and the way Norman deliberately and painfully lowers the gun. There has been enough suffering, and Norman does what he can to end it. the last lines where the villager asks Norman if he now understands the situation also demands that we attempt to understand how love and suffering are intermixed and not what we always imagine them to be.

  • Nicole

    The older man (the leader of the group) is the feral child’s father. He impregnated his sister, whose name is Nerea (the same name given to the child), either through rape or consensual sex, it really doesn’t matter. The child is born with deformed hands and represents the evil committed by her father/uncle and mother (who may be dead). When the man is trying to explain the situation to Paul in the woods, he says that sometimes the righteous need to suffer for the actions of the sinners, indicating that the child is suffering in a Christlike fashion for the sins of the father. She is both righteous and innocent as a child, and a frightening and cursed reminder of the effects of evil. That is why she must be kept out of sight. Check out the story “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas” by Ursula K.LeGuin; similar ideas are expressed. At the end, Norman shoots the child not because he snapped, but out of pity for her and also for her father – vile as he may be. Look at the expressions on their faces as the camera shifts from one man to the other and the way Norman deliberately and painfully lowers the gun. There has been enough suffering, and Norman does what he can to end it. the last lines where the villager asks Norman if he now understands the situation also demands that we attempt to understand how love and suffering are intermixed and not what we always imagine them to be.

  • Nicole

    The older man (the leader of the group) is the feral child’s father. He impregnated his sister, whose name is Nerea (the same name given to the child), either through rape or consensual sex, it really doesn’t matter. The child is born with deformed hands and represents the evil committed by her father/uncle and mother (who may be dead). When the man is trying to explain the situation to Paul in the woods, he says that sometimes the righteous need to suffer for the actions of the sinners, indicating that the child is suffering in a Christlike fashion for the sins of the father. She is both righteous and innocent as a child, and a frightening and cursed reminder of the effects of evil. That is why she must be kept out of sight. Check out the story “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas” by Ursula K.LeGuin; similar ideas are expressed. At the end, Norman shoots the child not because he snapped, but out of pity for her and also for her father – vile as he may be. Look at the expressions on their faces as the camera shifts from one man to the other and the way Norman deliberately and painfully lowers the gun. There has been enough suffering, and Norman does what he can to end it. the last lines where the villager asks Norman if he now understands the situation also demands that we attempt to understand how love and suffering are intermixed and not what we always imagine them to be.

    • Nicole

      Also as a side note: the name NEREA is a Basque variant of NERE, meaning “mine.” Thinking about it, it makes more sense that the main villain impregnated his daughter rather than his sister and then gave his grandgaughter/daughter the same name, emphasizing his ownership of the female offspring. He also refers the the child as “mine” several times in the film.

    • Nicole

      Also as a side note: the name NEREA is a Basque variant of NERE, meaning “mine.” Thinking about it, it makes more sense that the main villain impregnated his daughter rather than his sister and then gave his grandgaughter/daughter the same name, emphasizing his ownership of the female offspring. He also refers the the child as “mine” several times in the film.

    • Nicole

      Also as a side note: the name NEREA is a Basque variant of NERE, meaning “mine.” Thinking about it, it makes more sense that the main villain impregnated his daughter rather than his sister and then gave his grandgaughter/daughter the same name, emphasizing his ownership of the female offspring. He also refers the the child as “mine” several times in the film.

  • Nicole

    The older man (the leader of the group) is the feral child’s father. He impregnated his sister, whose name is Nerea (the same name given to the child), either through rape or consensual sex, it really doesn’t matter. The child is born with deformed hands and represents the evil committed by her father/uncle and mother (who may be dead). When the man is trying to explain the situation to Paul in the woods, he says that sometimes the righteous need to suffer for the actions of the sinners, indicating that the child is suffering in a Christlike fashion for the sins of the father. She is both righteous and innocent as a child, and a frightening and cursed reminder of the effects of evil. That is why she must be kept out of sight. Check out the story “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas” by Ursula K.LeGuin; similar ideas are expressed. At the end, Norman shoots the child not because he snapped, but out of pity for her and also for her father – vile as he may be. Look at the expressions on their faces as the camera shifts from one man to the other and the way Norman deliberately and painfully lowers the gun. There has been enough suffering, and Norman does what he can to end it. the last lines where the villager asks Norman if he now understands the situation also demands that we attempt to understand how love and suffering are intermixed and not what we always imagine them to be.

    • Nicole

      Also as a side note: the name NEREA is a Basque variant of NERE, meaning “mine.” Thinking about it, it makes more sense that the main villain impregnated his daughter rather than his sister and then gave his grandgaughter/daughter the same name, emphasizing his ownership of the female offspring. He also refers the the child as “mine” several times in the film.

  • gabe

    They did not shoot the girl. shes still turning the crank. The owner of the house they were staying at said “You understand? you understand?” I think he had taken the bullets out of the rifle to be safe. And becaues he still pulled the trigger the mna had to take him to “jail” or wherever he took him (I cant remember name)

    • j tills

      Then how does he shoot the other brother?