there are many like where were frank and the inbred woman getting food. also what bothered me was when the cops brought tess back to the house and they ask her for id. she fails to mention the car (a suv) that was sitting there along with keith's car who no one seemed to miss. the cops could have done a plate search.
shareThis movie has many plot holes and lots of unanswered questions. I think the director was more interested in effects and frights, which he succeeded in, rather than making a realistic horror film. He might think people won't notice all of the plot holes. There are a couple of other threads that talk about them at length.
shareI get the cars, what are the other holes?
shareThe thing in the basement was there for years and yet never attacked any previous renters? She was completely insane and violent and yet left all previous renters alone??
Where did they get food? Frank obviously hadn't been out for many years. Where were they getting food from??
Where were all the bodies of the babies and the kidnap victims? Judging from Frank's video collection, there would be a huge number of bodies.
How could Frank have built that elaborate tunnel system in the 80's when the neighborhood was still so populated?? I initially assumed that it was a large bomb shelter. They were commonly built in the 40's and 50's but then I read an interview where the director said that Frank had built it. The construction/demolition would have been enormous and no one said anything?? Absolutely unrealistic.
Don't get me wrong. The movie was OK, but I do prefer movies that explain things better and are a little more realistic.
Those aren't plot holes though. Just cause something is far-fetched doesn't make it a plot hole.
shareActually it does, or it's bad writing, take your pick. But we don't have to agree 🙂
As I said the move was OK. It had some good scares, but it had too many plot holes and unanswered questions for my taste.
All g. Not plot holes in this man's God honest opinion. Bad writing I can agree upon. Though, I loved the writing in this flick. I think any unanswered questions were most likely on purpose because of sequel bait. Any horror movie worth its salt these days leaves a door open.
shareHaven't you heard of Fritzl? Dude built an underground apartment and had his daughter and grandchildren captive there for decades without anybody noticing.
shareSure, absolutely horrific story in Austria. He converted his basement into a dungeon, he didn't build a huge tunnel system under his house that extended beneath neighboring properties. Frank's tunnel system was enormous!
shareParts of it were already there, but he also dug out new parts and expanded it a great deal.
But it's not like it's the only example of people finding secret areas beneath their houses:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/living/2357180/the-10-most-chilling-secret-rooms-people-have-found-in-their-homes-including-one-which-hid-an-unknown-housemate/
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/house-horrors-man-discovers-hidden-18623018
Yeah I know but these are rooms. The director said Frank built his. Period. Frank's was enormous, a very long tunnel system, and was also built under other properties which is why I assumed it was originally built as a bomb shelter in the 50's. For Frank to have built this in the 80's, with the amount of construction and excavation it would have required, it is totally unrealistic that no one knew it was there or that he was doing it! But we can agree to disagree, that's OK.
shareJust the amount of dirt that would have to be hauled out of there would have been astronomical. Also, an often vacant house in that neighborhood would have long since been trashed.
shareAbsolutely.
I think the director and the writers were trying to do something very different but didn't think things through as they should have.
The thing in the basement was there for years and yet never attacked any previous renters? She was completely insane and violent and yet left all previous renters alone??
No one said she never attacked the previous renters. It's just not mentioned because it's not important to the story.
Where did they get food? Frank obviously hadn't been out for many years. Where were they getting food from??
They leave out occasionally or they can find food in the tunnel. Once again, it's only not talked about because it's not important to the movie.
Where were all the bodies of the babies and the kidnap victims? Judging from Frank's video collection, there would be a huge number of bodies.
Probably somewhere else in the cavern. Protags didn't go that far in it.
How could Frank have built that elaborate tunnel system in the 80's when the neighborhood was still so populated?? I initially assumed that it was a large bomb shelter. They were commonly built in the 40's and 50's but then I read an interview where the director said that Frank had built it. The construction/demolition would have been enormous and no one said anything?? Absolutely unrealistic.
Not a plothole. Just something that happened decades ago in secret and thus the explanation got buried to.
Don't get me wrong. The movie was OK, but I do prefer movies that explain things better and are a little more realistic.
So everything needs to make immediate sense or need to be explained? Not even reality fits this.
You said, "Where did they get food?"
You also said, "What did they do with all those dead bodies, there would be a huge number of bodies."
Think about it for a second. Question #1 is answered by Question #2. They were incestuous cannibals. All those bodies became food.
The homeless man also said she comes out at night. This is another way to get food staples.
There is no mention of cannibalism at all anywhere on line, or from the director's interview, or in the movie itself. You can think what you want, but cannibalism was never alluded to. Yes, she went out at night, but it's impossible for her to get enough food for them to stay alive just from scrounging around - especially in that destitute neighborhood where there are no stores and no residents in the houses to leave garbage.
shareEasy answers:
Yes
From the pantry.
In the room that wasn't on camera.
With a shovel.
There, all questions answered. That was easy.
I appreciate a horror movie that concentrates on the horror.
share"No one said she never attacked the previous renters. It's just not mentioned because it's not important to the story." If she had attacked previous renters, that house would have been on the police radar. If people had disappeared from that address previously, that house would have been gone over with a fine tooth comb. Big flaw and very important to the story.
"They leave out occasionally or they can find food in the tunnel." As sick as Frank is, he wasn't out for a very, very long time. What food could they possibly have in the tunnel? Again, a flaw.
"Not a plothole. Just something that happened decades ago in secret and thus the explanation got buried to." A tunnel system like Frank's could not have been built in the 80's "in secret". Impossible!
"Probably somewhere else in the cavern. Protags didn't go that far in it." That's the only thing that might be possible, although why not show piles of bones? That would have been more realistic, and actually a little creepier too (assuming the bones were, in fact, somewhere in the tunnel).
Yes, much of the movie doesn't make sense. I will not deny that.
shareI think the director was trying to make a very different type of film, but in the process he got very sloppy. He probably thought if he made it scary enough with a unique plot, people wouldn't even notice the amount of flaws or unanswered questions there are. But we did. I think that is what possibly happened.
shareI was screaming the same thing at old love. Dumb cops. Two new cars in crackhead city, retards.
sharethey never asked her address or name from what i remember.
shareShe never offered it up either, whilst standing next to her car, which now I think about it could have been a rental, but still, shitty cops. But I mean, this movie is trying to be current, air bnb, incompetent cops, me too actor, it's a bit transparent. I liked this movie though, sue me.
shareI actually missed that one. You're right, that was definitely a plot hole.
shareThis is not a plot hole. It can be explained by bad writing, or incompetence on the characters part.
shareOK fine. Tell us in great detail exactly what constitutes a plot hole.
Because every time someone mentions one, they’re immediately inundated by replies of “that’s not a plot hole” w/ no real explanation why it wasn’t.
Two moron cops failing to take into account new vehicles parked in front of a house, then one proclaims “ain’t no-one in there” is definitely a huge plot hole, among many in this turkey of a film.
In fiction, a plot hole, plothole or plot error is a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot.[1]
Plot holes are usually created unintentionally, often as a result of editing or the writers simply forgetting that a new event would contradict previous events. However, the term is also frequently applied incorrectly—for example, a character intentionally written to take irrational action would not constitute a plot hole, nor would "loose ends" or unexplained aspects of the story.
That is from Wikipedia.
there are many like where were frank and the inbred woman getting food.
i didn't think there was a cannibal element to this movie.
shareI don't think so either. The writing wasn't wonderful and left a lot of unanswered questions. I think in this case a prequel would be a very good idea. It would (hopefully) help to explain so much.
share
Well, how else would you explain that the old disabled rapist and "the woman" were the only ones there?
If they reproduced like that homeless guy said, there would have been a whole settlement.
Plus the OP is correct in that they otherwise had no access to food.
Also, didn't AJ actually step into some rotting meat or something when he found the old man?
Incest to that extent causes horrific physical and mental disabilities, resulting in shortened life spans.
AJ might have stepped in something, I honestly don't remember, but we don't know what or where it came from.
Not *that* shortened, and it couldn't possibly have affected every single one.
I do think my version is the only that would actually explain it.
It depends on what's wrong. Frank fathered child after child after child with kidnap victims and then fathered child after child after child with that offspring, - his offspring - and then continued to do so for years and years. The congenital defects were probably very serious. The "woman" in the basement was a lone survivor and look at what she was.
share
Well, because she was the strongest.
And besides, how do *you* think they got food, for decades on end?
Even scavenging through garbage would require an actual neighborhood with people, and everything around them was abandoned.
That's what we're griping about. Too many unanswered questions.
Maybe there will be a prequel and it will explain everything 🙂
[deleted]
I loved this movie on my first viewing and I still like it, but this is not a film that is going to age well or hold up to a lot of scrutiny on repeat viewing for the reasons you've mentioned. It's pretty telling that this film went from a 7.6 IMDB rating to a 7.1 in about two weeks after it became available on streaming.
There's other problems beyond what's already been mentioned. Did nobody report Tess or Keith missing? The documentary filmmaker that Tess interviewed with knew what part of town she was staying in and she must have wondered why she never head from Tess again. Keith was part of some group that surely must have been aware what house he was staying at or should have at least wondered why they haven't heard from him. And how did Keith travel around? There wasn't a car outside the house when Tess arrived. It's possible he used an Uber, but why not just specify that and leave that hanging? How did the homeless man learn the terrible history of the house?
Wow, you're right about Tess's prospective boss not reporting her missing! I never even thought of that and it is yet another flaw! Keith too, again you're right. Not sure about Keith's car. He probably did use an Uber.
I'm not sure the homeless man knew the whole history but he certainly knew there was an insane woman/creature living there that only came out at night, along with a man who was evil.
He also knew that Frank would kidnap women, rape them, and that the woman/creature was a product of generations of incest. I just don't really know how he could find all that out unless he went into the tunnels himself or a kidnap/rape victim escaped and revealed what was going on down there, but obviously neither of those things occurred.
shareActually yes he did know. It's possible he saw Frank drag in kidnapped women in the middle of the night. He did say something about lots and lots of babies over the years. They might have also come out in the middle of the night like the woman did which is probably how he saw them. This movie makes me feel like I'm participating in a guessing game!!
shareIf they reproduced like that homeless guy said, there would have been a whole settlement.Humans absolutely cannot subsist on reproductive cannibalism. It takes a lot of calories to produce a baby. There's no way they could reproduce themselves out of starvation. share
It's been a while since I saw the movie, but when I was writing that I was imagining a large family with lots of children.
After all, the man was very old, he must have had several generations of offspring (and offspring with that offspring) by the time of discovery.
There was no reason why there would have been only one daughter.
What I didn't understand, however, was who placed the Airbnb ads, since the actual property owner wasn't involved. It didn't seem like it could possibly have been the old man, let alone his feral daughter.
After all, the man was very old, he must have had several generations of offspring (and offspring with that offspring) by the time of discovery.The movie devoted an entire flashback to show us that the man was a loner who started his kidnappings in the 1980's. There's no evidence that anyone else was involved at the start. Sure, he eventually started a family, but apparently only one child survived or everybody else escaped or was murdered. In any case, by 2022 he had only one accomplice.
What I didn't understand, however, was who placed the Airbnb adsThe ads were placed by the real estate management company he hired to take care of all aspects of keeping his property rented. share
I didn't say anything about anyone else being involved. 🤷🏻♀️
The others can be living under all the houses in the delapidated town.
share
Honestly, the fact that the house turned out to be double-booked when the management company wasn't even aware of anyone staying there at all, bothered me more.
Because initially I thought whoever lured them to the house posted the listings, but it couldn't have possible been the feral woman or the old man. [shrug]
The SUV was her car. What good would a plate search do?
As for food, presumably she is going out at night to get food.
[deleted]