This is one of those few films that is too subtle for its own good. I think the vast majority of people who have seen it think it's got a stupid ending and is too 'Tarantino'.
Killing Zoe is about blood from start to finish. The opening titles are red, they fade to red, Nosferatu is on the TV when Zoe and Zed have sex, Eric has HIV, he cuts Zed, the whole basement is red(!) and Eric's blood is EVERYWHERE, all over them at the end.
I don't know if Roger Avary is making a point about HIV or not, but to me it's a fascinating film with a grand design and commitment to an idea. I love it!
To me, and this is just my opinion obviously, this movie doesn't know what it's saying about blood. It uses the color red and blood as a recurring theme, but it's not actually an allegory for anything. I could easily be wrong, in which case someone could explain what I missed, but it's more of a 'look, it's a cool recurring theme' type thing than a metaphor.
I mean, what is it really saying about contracting HIV? That if you do something risky (rob a bank), it could turn out bad(people dying)? But that's obvious to EVERYONE over 10, that risky behavior leads to unwanted consequences.
The fact that you CAN'T TELL if he's making a point or not kind of says that he wasn't in my eyes... as if he thought it was a cool thing to do, but didn't actually flesh it out and try to figure out what he's really trying to say...
"Layered. Like Nachos. Exponential growth yo." - Jesse 'Jackson' Pinkman
Right on. There is a recurring theme about blood/HIV but there is nothing poignant said of it or evenly vaguely suggested for interpretation. There's a blood motif, but no point.
I feel that folks affiliated with Tarantino are given a great deal of leeway my movie buffs, as though a simple and dumb story with the right amount of homage and subtext makes for a grand statement.