"How many lockable doors is this woman going to go through?!?!?!" When she went through that thing that was clearly a retractable metal gate I just had to laugh."

Though to be entirely fair, I once wandered WAY too deep into some woods (and off of the path!) by myself because something caught my eye. So . . .

"How many lockable doors is this woman going to go through?!?!?!" When she went through that thing that was clearly a retractable metal gate I just had to laugh."

Though to be entirely fair, I once wandered WAY too deep into some woods (and off of the path!) by myself because something caught my eye. So . . .

in the least claustrophobic - for those who know about my (ex) health condition, I’m very accustomed to lack of air/ mild suffocation, so I don’t seem to perceive claustrophobic moments the same as most people (my mother is awfully claustrophobic). Tess going down there was sure weird but didn’t bother me as much as it could have done. It doesn’t immediately make sense that the door locks itself from the inside (unless you know it’s a prison, which, yeah), and after that, she tries to look around to get out and stops quite quickly.

For what that’s worth, even Keith going down there to check out “the bed and the bucket” didn’t bother me that much (I think I could well have exhibited that level of sarcastic disbelief at that point). For all the Cabin in the Woods rationale that you don’t go to basements etc, I know quite a lot of men who would do that in that situation out of a kind of natural scepticism (as in, “Really?”), and then he seems to be the type of young guy to who it’s kind of “cool and creepy” to find a tunnel in the basement. More believable than most set-ups, actually.

I think the idea is that she tries to position herself (not least to herself) as “tough”. That is largely justified by the fact she does figure out how to survive. In that sense, I was more bothered by her repeatedly going deeper in or back to save the men. Obviously a semi-ironic “turning a trope on its head” thing, but that’s the one I found to be stretching credulity. The only context in which that would work to me is if she was proving to herself her toughness/that she was a moral creature going back to help others, something like that, like a self-test, rather than an actual decision in the moment. It jars with her having had reasonably good survival instincts until then.

I guess I could just about buy that she liked Keith and trying to find/save him was more of a decision based on proximity/the fact he’d previously saved her, but with AJ, given that he is (to most people) unlikeable and hadn’t until then done anything whatsoever to help her (indeed disregarding her “survival” instructions and putting them both in danger), I didn’t quite buy that she would make quite so much effort to go back in herself rather than sending help (naturally, that’s predicated on “help” not taking Tess seriously), but still, to me her insistence on going back in person almost read like she’s being sold as saintly or perceiving herself as such.

All of which adds up to a not-so-subtle message that men (whether the Me Too kind like AJ or the “nice guys” like Keith) perish while Tess survives almost through her saintliness, as Mother arguably sees “humanity”/empathy/morals in her (that’s one of the interpretations I’ve read, and it does make sense, but seems a bit too preachy). I think there’s something to be said for rational egoism eventually being a bit more celebrated in horror films, e.g. not going back to a lair for random unlikeable men (or women) you barely know. The film kind of toys with that when Tess says “nope”, but we barely have any films where full-on, unapologetic egoism is portrayed as an option that doesn’t lead to death.

in the least claustrophobic - for those who know about my (ex) health condition, I’m very accustomed to lack of air/ mild suffocation, so I don’t seem to perceive claustrophobic moments the same as most people (my mother is awfully claustrophobic). Tess going down there was sure weird but didn’t bother me as much as it could have done. It doesn’t immediately make sense that the door locks itself from the inside (unless you know it’s a prison, which, yeah), and after that, she tries to look around to get out and stops quite quickly.

For what that’s worth, even Keith going down there to check out “the bed and the bucket” didn’t bother me that much (I think I could well have exhibited that level of sarcastic disbelief at that point). For all the Cabin in the Woods rationale that you don’t go to basements etc, I know quite a lot of men who would do that in that situation out of a kind of natural scepticism (as in, “Really?”), and then he seems to be the type of young guy to who it’s kind of “cool and creepy” to find a tunnel in the basement. More believable than most set-ups, actually.

I think the idea is that she tries to position herself (not least to herself) as “tough”. That is largely justified by the fact she does figure out how to survive. In that sense, I was more bothered by her repeatedly going deeper in or back to save the men. Obviously a semi-ironic “turning a trope on its head” thing, but that’s the one I found to be stretching credulity. The only context in which that would work to me is if she was proving to herself her toughness/that she was a moral creature going back to help others, something like that, like a self-test, rather than an actual decision in the moment. It jars with her having had reasonably good survival instincts until then.

I guess I could just about buy that she liked Keith and trying to find/save him was more of a decision based on proximity/the fact he’d previously saved her, but with AJ, given that he is (to most people) unlikeable and hadn’t until then done anything whatsoever to help her (indeed disregarding her “survival” instructions and putting them both in danger), I didn’t quite buy that she would make quite so much effort to go back in herself rather than sending help (naturally, that’s predicated on “help” not taking Tess seriously), but still, to me her insistence on going back in person almost read like she’s being sold as saintly or perceiving herself as such.

All of which adds up to a not-so-subtle message that men (whether the Me Too kind like AJ or the “nice guys” like Keith) perish while Tess survives almost through her saintliness, as Mother arguably sees “humanity”/empathy/morals in her (that’s one of the interpretations I’ve read, and it does make sense, but seems a bit too preachy). I think there’s something to be said for rational egoism eventually being a bit more celebrated in horror films, e.g. not going back to a lair for random unlikeable men (or women) you barely know. The film kind of toys with that when Tess says “nope”, but we barely have any films where full-on, unapologetic egoism is portrayed as an option that doesn’t lead to death.

deaths of the men as being a message about men perishing and Tess surviving because she is morally good.

With Keith, he is a really nice guy! But literally up until he dies, I think we are meant to suspect that he might be in on whatever is happening. In fact, I initially thought that when he went down to the basement it was because he was luring her back down there because she wanted to leave.

He was cute and nice and he shared her interests, and in many ways he seemed like he could be a trap. So him dying, to me, was just a shocking moment because not only is he not in on whatever is happening, he is a victim of it. The space between "Is Keith trapping her?" and "Oh, snap! Did Keith just die?" is like 2 seconds of runtime.

I also didn't mind Tess helping AJ, because she doesn't know he's a bad person. He's clearly terrified, and I think she just doesn't hold anything against him because how can you judge someone who has just been thrown in a pit and force-fed, LOL.

I do think that Tess survives in part because she is selfless and empathetic, and I didn't mind that. I thought that AJ was a great parody of people who claim to regret harming others, but seemingly can't help themselves when push comes to shove (PUN INTENDED!).

I also think that AJ works as like a mirror version of Keith. At first we are given to believe that he is being falsely accused. His disbelief and anger feel very real, as do his denials. The scene with the accountant is vicariously stressful! But then as things go on we start to realize that he's actually not a good person, and it's all tied to his selfishness and lack of empathy.

deaths of the men as being a message about men perishing and Tess surviving because she is morally good.

With Keith, he is a really nice guy! But literally up until he dies, I think we are meant to suspect that he might be in on whatever is happening. In fact, I initially thought that when he went down to the basement it was because he was luring her back down there because she wanted to leave.

He was cute and nice and he shared her interests, and in many ways he seemed like he could be a trap. So him dying, to me, was just a shocking moment because not only is he not in on whatever is happening, he is a victim of it. The space between "Is Keith trapping her?" and "Oh, snap! Did Keith just die?" is like 2 seconds of runtime.

I also didn't mind Tess helping AJ, because she doesn't know he's a bad person. He's clearly terrified, and I think she just doesn't hold anything against him because how can you judge someone who has just been thrown in a pit and force-fed, LOL.

I do think that Tess survives in part because she is selfless and empathetic, and I didn't mind that. I thought that AJ was a great parody of people who claim to regret harming others, but seemingly can't help themselves when push comes to shove (PUN INTENDED!).

I also think that AJ works as like a mirror version of Keith. At first we are given to believe that he is being falsely accused. His disbelief and anger feel very real, as do his denials. The scene with the accountant is vicariously stressful! But then as things go on we start to realize that he's actually not a good person, and it's all tied to his selfishness and lack of empathy.

...Tess behaving in stupid or irrational ways. This was one of the things about the movie I really liked! There's a strong implication she's going to do that, as the basement door drifts close, but she stops it, which I took as a meta nod towards those kinds of lazy horror tropes.

She does venture back into the basement, but she does it for a very good reason: he's calling for help! I was actually able to predict most of what happened at this point in the movie, simply because it was the only thing that could happen that would lead her back down there, and in turn allow us to discover the next layer of the mystery. I kept thinking/saying that he'd have to do X and then Y to put her in the most agonizing position possible.

I think it'd be reasonable to complain that she gave up way too easy on the cops/authorities after getting that first brush off (which I didn't really find believable, either), though.

...Tess behaving in stupid or irrational ways. This was one of the things about the movie I really liked! There's a strong implication she's going to do that, as the basement door drifts close, but she stops it, which I took as a meta nod towards those kinds of lazy horror tropes.

She does venture back into the basement, but she does it for a very good reason: he's calling for help! I was actually able to predict most of what happened at this point in the movie, simply because it was the only thing that could happen that would lead her back down there, and in turn allow us to discover the next layer of the mystery. I kept thinking/saying that he'd have to do X and then Y to put her in the most agonizing position possible.

I think it'd be reasonable to complain that she gave up way too easy on the cops/authorities after getting that first brush off (which I didn't really find believable, either), though.

call 911 before going down in the basement. She is clearly really freaked out, and so the idea that she'd go down in this basement with a man she maybe still doesn't totally trust was hard to watch.

It was when she went down the rock stairs that I had issues. I know he's yelling for help, but if she falls or whatever, they are both screwed.

Even dialing 911 on the cell phone and then leaving the phone on a counter while she went to explore would have been better.

Like, it's not TERRIBLE horror movie character behavior. And I appreciated the propping of the door and the mirror trick to not have to walk into the passageway.

For me it's just on the side of believable. I think that problem is that, as a viewer, you know how bad an idea it is to go deep in that house, so it magnifies it not being a wise choice. Even though, like I wrote earlier, I have been guilty of similar behavior myself.

call 911 before going down in the basement. She is clearly really freaked out, and so the idea that she'd go down in this basement with a man she maybe still doesn't totally trust was hard to watch.

It was when she went down the rock stairs that I had issues. I know he's yelling for help, but if she falls or whatever, they are both screwed.

Even dialing 911 on the cell phone and then leaving the phone on a counter while she went to explore would have been better.

Like, it's not TERRIBLE horror movie character behavior. And I appreciated the propping of the door and the mirror trick to not have to walk into the passageway.

For me it's just on the side of believable. I think that problem is that, as a viewer, you know how bad an idea it is to go deep in that house, so it magnifies it not being a wise choice. Even though, like I wrote earlier, I have been guilty of similar behavior myself.

I'll grant that maybe she should have tried alerting the authorities much sooner, but I'm not at all surprised that she gives up on them once they actually show up and prove to be all kinds of ineffectual - what exactly is she going to do, call them again and be written off as a crank caller? The film does make it clear that, from the cops' point of view, she's a woman in dirty clothes who's broken a window on a house that doesn't belong to her and thus is obviously suspicious, plus they ditch her for the more immediate action of a "shots fired" call anyway. The Dead Meat podcast did make a good observation that both the cops are male and that maybe a female officer would've noted that Tess is still wearing her upscale job interview clothes and realised that something really has gone wrong, which would only lend credence to the film's established ideas about how men perceive signs of danger differently to women (to say nothing of how cops might see things differently than civilians).

I'll grant that maybe she should have tried alerting the authorities much sooner, but I'm not at all surprised that she gives up on them once they actually show up and prove to be all kinds of ineffectual - what exactly is she going to do, call them again and be written off as a crank caller? The film does make it clear that, from the cops' point of view, she's a woman in dirty clothes who's broken a window on a house that doesn't belong to her and thus is obviously suspicious, plus they ditch her for the more immediate action of a "shots fired" call anyway. The Dead Meat podcast did make a good observation that both the cops are male and that maybe a female officer would've noted that Tess is still wearing her upscale job interview clothes and realised that something really has gone wrong, which would only lend credence to the film's established ideas about how men perceive signs of danger differently to women (to say nothing of how cops might see things differently than civilians).

Yes, that's exactly what she does, or tries doing, knowing how fraught the alternatives are. It's what 95% of us would do, too, man or woman.

Obviously there are superficial reasons for her to think it won't work a second time, because the movie's not crappy enough to just totally handwave it away. It puts in a modicum of effort to make it kinda believable, but it falls pretty well short of the kind of out-of-its-way thoughtfulness I mentioned earlier. It's thematically consistent, but not realistic, and subsuming theme to realism or even internal consistency in moments like that is just a misstep.

Doubly so when the theme being reinforced has already been made, at that point in the film, abundantly clear. Little is really added to it by heaping another example onto the pile, and the only reason it's there is so people don't yell at the movie about why she never tried going to the authorities. It seems like a preemptive half-measure.

Yes, that's exactly what she does, or tries doing, knowing how fraught the alternatives are. It's what 95% of us would do, too, man or woman.

Obviously there are superficial reasons for her to think it won't work a second time, because the movie's not crappy enough to just totally handwave it away. It puts in a modicum of effort to make it kinda believable, but it falls pretty well short of the kind of out-of-its-way thoughtfulness I mentioned earlier. It's thematically consistent, but not realistic, and subsuming theme to realism or even internal consistency in moments like that is just a misstep.

Doubly so when the theme being reinforced has already been made, at that point in the film, abundantly clear. Little is really added to it by heaping another example onto the pile, and the only reason it's there is so people don't yell at the movie about why she never tried going to the authorities. It seems like a preemptive half-measure.

I think it's also mitigated by the fact that she knows A.J. is still stuck down there with the Mother and can't afford to waste time waiting for more cops that may also give her the run-around. There's also the matter of how they emphasise again and again the conditions of the neighbourhood - the reveal of how the Airbnb house is the only remotely functional one in a street full of ruins, the job interviewer remarking on how bad it is and telling Tess she shouldn't be there, the fact that only one homeless person seems to live there - that give the impression of the cops considering it a low priority anyway. In any case, I don't really see it being such an inherently implausible scenario regardless of "realism" (which still feels like it could go either way).

I think it's also mitigated by the fact that she knows A.J. is still stuck down there with the Mother and can't afford to waste time waiting for more cops that may also give her the run-around. There's also the matter of how they emphasise again and again the conditions of the neighbourhood - the reveal of how the Airbnb house is the only remotely functional one in a street full of ruins, the job interviewer remarking on how bad it is and telling Tess she shouldn't be there, the fact that only one homeless person seems to live there - that give the impression of the cops considering it a low priority anyway. In any case, I don't really see it being such an inherently implausible scenario regardless of "realism" (which still feels like it could go either way).

All of that is factored into what I'm saying already. My argument is not "they didn't give a single coherent explanation for why she might do this," it's that it simply isn't sufficient at that point.

The idea that any real person would give up on law enforcement in such a dangerous situation after a single attempt just seems nutty. And while A.J. was in danger, she literally already made that exact mistake--trying to help the guy herself rather than get help--earlier in the film.

If someone wants to excuse it because It's Just a Movie, that's fine, but it's definitely an example of a movie being a movie and no longer trying to resemble real life. I'm willing to overlook it in total, which is why I said I like the movie and started by defending her character's judgment. Just not in this instance.

All of that is factored into what I'm saying already. My argument is not "they didn't give a single coherent explanation for why she might do this," it's that it simply isn't sufficient at that point.

The idea that any real person would give up on law enforcement in such a dangerous situation after a single attempt just seems nutty. And while A.J. was in danger, she literally already made that exact mistake--trying to help the guy herself rather than get help--earlier in the film.

If someone wants to excuse it because It's Just a Movie, that's fine, but it's definitely an example of a movie being a movie and no longer trying to resemble real life. I'm willing to overlook it in total, which is why I said I like the movie and started by defending her character's judgment. Just not in this instance.

I don't know, there is a certain saying about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result...

But seriously, it is also foreshadowed by the homeless person in the neighbourhood who does try to warn her about what's in the house but she mistakes him for a crazy attacker (and does call the cops on him) - this only makes it seem more plausible that the police are quick to assume the same thing about her later in the film (especially if she can't provide immediate proof to back up such a claim and they cite their own reasons for why they can't legally investigate the building anyway). Trying to base it in what "real" people would do is going to be a little presumptuous because, well, who gets to define who a real person is, much less what they would or wouldn't do? Maybe in your personal experience the police are reliable and just enough that you would try calling them again even after the first unit to respond to your call is aggressively unhelpful, but does that mean you can unequivocally assume that the same is true of everyone else's experience with the police?

I don't know, there is a certain saying about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result...

But seriously, it is also foreshadowed by the homeless person in the neighbourhood who does try to warn her about what's in the house but she mistakes him for a crazy attacker (and does call the cops on him) - this only makes it seem more plausible that the police are quick to assume the same thing about her later in the film (especially if she can't provide immediate proof to back up such a claim and they cite their own reasons for why they can't legally investigate the building anyway). Trying to base it in what "real" people would do is going to be a little presumptuous because, well, who gets to define who a real person is, much less what they would or wouldn't do? Maybe in your personal experience the police are reliable and just enough that you would try calling them again even after the first unit to respond to your call is aggressively unhelpful, but does that mean you can unequivocally assume that the same is true of everyone else's experience with the police?

That's literally my argument: she tried to help the guy herself once before and was literally thrown in a hole.

That's literally my argument: she tried to help the guy herself once before and was literally thrown in a hole.

That's also all the more reason to listen to the guy and not go back in! All the things you're offering as reasons she should have given up on the cops are also reasons she should not.

That's also all the more reason to listen to the guy and not go back in! All the things you're offering as reasons she should have given up on the cops are also reasons she should not.

Yeah, I kinda suspected this is what was really at the root of this. As someone who's lived in a bunch of poor and/or high-crime areas, you can rest assured nothing I'm saying is based on a rosy picture of law enforcement, though I'm getting the feeling the contrary opinion here is definitely based on the inverse. I'd be surprised if we had similar levels of actual real-world experience with this, too.

Yeah, I kinda suspected this is what was really at the root of this. As someone who's lived in a bunch of poor and/or high-crime areas, you can rest assured nothing I'm saying is based on a rosy picture of law enforcement, though I'm getting the feeling the contrary opinion here is definitely based on the inverse. I'd be surprised if we had similar levels of actual real-world experience with this, too.

the cops then at least someone. If someone I don't know comes to my door, I immediately call a friend or family member.

When a man was in my backyard with a gun and the police took 15 minutes to get to my house, I immediately also got my sister on the phone so that someone knew what was happening, where I was, etc.

It's not that she doesn't call the police specifically, so much as she goes down in the basement (where you know there won't be reception) without making anyone aware.

the cops then at least someone. If someone I don't know comes to my door, I immediately call a friend or family member.

When a man was in my backyard with a gun and the police took 15 minutes to get to my house, I immediately also got my sister on the phone so that someone knew what was happening, where I was, etc.

It's not that she doesn't call the police specifically, so much as she goes down in the basement (where you know there won't be reception) without making anyone aware.

...my initial comment wasn't even limited to law enforcement. The conversation got conspicuously dragged to them but the original idea was just that it's clearly better to get literally any help at all.

...my initial comment wasn't even limited to law enforcement. The conversation got conspicuously dragged to them but the original idea was just that it's clearly better to get literally any help at all.

Since the guy we meet at the beginning of the film is not a bad guy, how did the house get double-booked? When the owner shows up he has been informed that it has not been cleaned because it has not been booked, so it is not his company who booked it. So, who booked it and who double-booked it?

Since the guy we meet at the beginning of the film is not a bad guy, how did the house get double-booked? When the owner shows up he has been informed that it has not been cleaned because it has not been booked, so it is not his company who booked it. So, who booked it and who double-booked it?

...that it's just incompetence. This would be my guess by default, but throw in the argument AJ has with the property manager (or whatever) about the house not being checked on for a couple of weeks, and that moves the needle on it for a bit more towards that null hypothesis.

...that it's just incompetence. This would be my guess by default, but throw in the argument AJ has with the property manager (or whatever) about the house not being checked on for a couple of weeks, and that moves the needle on it for a bit more towards that null hypothesis.

My impression was that the owner shows quite a bit later (like days, maybe even a week or two after the first act). The house isn't cleaned because it hasn't been booked since the double-boking incident. Nothing weird in that, in my opinion.

My impression was that the owner shows quite a bit later (like days, maybe even a week or two after the first act). The house isn't cleaned because it hasn't been booked since the double-boking incident. Nothing weird in that, in my opinion.

How did that guy dig an endless mine shaft under his neighborhood and how is it that city services didn't notice it?



How did those two women survive the fall from the top of the water tower? I mean that was a killer fall?



How is human refuse being removed from the bowels of the mine-dungeon? Is tunnel-rat woman carrying out buckets of excrement to be disposed of in the toilet?



How are they keeping themselves fed down there? The main dude is bed ridden and tunnel-rat woman would only not get a second look at a Walmart. Was she buying her formula from Walmart? Was a Walmart nearby?



How did that nice Jeep not get stolen on that street?



Did she get the job? Will she make a documentary of her experience?


How did they do the effects work to make Detroit to NOT look like a lifeless hell-scape in the flashback?

How did that guy dig an endless mine shaft under his neighborhood and how is it that city services didn't notice it?



How did those two women survive the fall from the top of the water tower? I mean that was a killer fall?



How is human refuse being removed from the bowels of the mine-dungeon? Is tunnel-rat woman carrying out buckets of excrement to be disposed of in the toilet?



How are they keeping themselves fed down there? The main dude is bed ridden and tunnel-rat woman would only not get a second look at a Walmart. Was she buying her formula from Walmart? Was a Walmart nearby?



How did that nice Jeep not get stolen on that street?



Did she get the job? Will she make a documentary of her experience?


How did they do the effects work to make Detroit to NOT look like a lifeless hell-scape in the flashback?

Well, yeah, that's why I said "maybe" - at least you also noticed that I responded to this observation precisely because nobody else had made it and it stands out even when discussing a film that plays fast and loose with what would be considered "realistic" behaviour. Even accounting for the possibility that she might eventually get in touch with someone less callous (which I already did), the ones she does meet specifically cite the legal reasons why they can't (or won't) investigate the house anyway such as her not being the house's owner. I think that does more to mitigate the idea than any question of whether or not it's purely a matter of her own volition.

Well, yeah, that's why I said "maybe" - at least you also noticed that I responded to this observation precisely because nobody else had made it and it stands out even when discussing a film that plays fast and loose with what would be considered "realistic" behaviour. Even accounting for the possibility that she might eventually get in touch with someone less callous (which I already did), the ones she does meet specifically cite the legal reasons why they can't (or won't) investigate the house anyway such as her not being the house's owner. I think that does more to mitigate the idea than any question of whether or not it's purely a matter of her own volition.

"Wow, CGI makes Detroit look like a nice city!"

"Wow, CGI makes Detroit look like a nice city!"

1. The ridiculous deep coal-mine-thing under the house.

2. The women not dying when they fell off the top of a water tower.

1. The ridiculous deep coal-mine-thing under the house.

2. The women not dying when they fell off the top of a water tower.