MovieChat Forums > Panic Room (2002) Discussion > Since it's not an intercom, then why...

Since it's not an intercom, then why...

posted 13 years ago by GloriaMundy
21 replies | jump to latest

...in the world couldn't Meg have just told the two policemen everything and told them to go away and come back so that Raoul and Burnham would think that she got rid of them? She used an awful lot of time talking to the police when the thieves couldn't hear a word she said anyway, and hey, they could have been nervous enough to kill Sarah anyhow figuring that Meg was giving the impression of sending them away and they became suspicious. Why the whole scene where she tells the cops that stupid lie? Totally unnecessary! She could have told them thieves was indeed in the house, and make them appear to leave only to show up at some backdoor or something! Cheesus! She really gambled with Sarah's life by using that much time! Right? No? Anybody?

[–] xdaysx 13 years ago

What is she going to do, say "Hey coppers, there's 2 guys trying to rob my house and kill us, come back in 20 minutes"?

It's not like she can predict what is going to happen, and she sure as hell knows that those cops can't get into the panic room.

What would you do if your daughter was locked in a panic room with 2 burglars? Let the cops in and hope for the best?

[–] omegamale 13 years ago

I thought the same thing. She could have told the cops the situation in detail and ask them to call backup or some special unit. I guess she didn't want to involve more people and more guns, but surely her plan looked far more dangerous and crazy.

[–] angry_hatter 13 years ago

Cops don't do what is best for the situation, they do what they are trained to do. There was a good chance they would have just busted in there right then and gotten that kid killed. The murderers would have been the ones vilified in the press and the cops probably wouldn't have taken any heat.

I've heard many stories like cops initiating high speed chases over petty criminals trying to get away, even though they know the identities and could eventually track them down. They are single minded and will gladly endanger anyone they need to to get the criminal immediately.

[–] carsonnik 13 years ago

Wow, someone's holding a little grudge against cops aren't they? You've heard ''Stories?'' By who exactly? You accept everything you hear as fact without bothering to confirm anything?I assume you have never been a cop or known any personally judging by your blanket statement.

[–] angry_hatter 12 years ago

My aunt was a dispatcher for over two decades. We used to listen to her police scanner when I would visit.

As for the "Stories" I should clarify that I mean reported news stories. One that sticks out in my mind the most is the police initiating a high speed chase with some thieves who jacked about a hundred bucks worth of DVDs. Even though they had the license plate number, video evidence and proof of the thieves' identities they still chased them for over ten minutes at over 100 mph. The pursuit ended in a collision into a civilian car killing a 16 year old girl and her mother.

How about the Sept 8, 2000 court decision (And many others like it) giving police agencies the right to only hire officers below a certain IQ point? The reasoning stated in a court of law was that those with higher IQs tend to think for themselves about what to do in a situation rather than blindly following police policy each time.

Or the case of Dan Jenson, a Florida resident who was tased and handcuffed for trying to keep his neighbor's house fire from spreading to his home. He was standing clear of the fire and hosing down his roof and walls from a safe distance, no fire men had arrived yet (So there was no way he was obstructing their rescue efforts) and the police used physical force on him, handcuffed in face down in the dirt and made him sit by helpless while his house caught fire.

There are many more cases, statements and public documents that back up my original stance of the police, as an organization, being concerned only with their policies and liability and being taught not to stray from those procedures even when it means endangering the safety of the general public.

[–] SagiY21 12 years ago

WOW, I didn't know that.

That's a really nice post.

[–] Psychedelics8 12 years ago

The USA police is so stupid haha.. Even in South Africa the cops are stupid (uneducated, literally) but they deal with situations well for the people, not to the books.. If you need help they help, if they need to back away from a situation they do.

[–] mad_roke 11 years ago

so if you tell the cops that your kid is held hostage in an indestructable panic room where there's a guy who just killed his own partner they'd burst in and do what exactly? Menacingly point their guns at the door?

[–] Link6321 13 years ago

I'm guessing she was considering the possibility that the cops wouldn't cooperate with her, even if she tried to make them understand. The main cop was OK, but the other one with the gun seemed uninterested. There's no way she could've predicted what they would've done if she did tell them there were intruders inside the house and that she's only putting on a show for them because they have her daughter in the locked panic room.

If I was in her position, I probably would've done the same thing. I wouldn't want the cops and their backup involved, because I wouldn't have any control of what they'd do, and I certainly wouldn't want that if the intruders have my daughter. While cops are a big help, some of them can be pretty reckless (nobody's perfect). I'd rather take care of things myself in that situation instead of involving people I have no control over, or people who might not even listen to me or cooperate with me.

.------------.
| Dexterized | A juvenile 54-year-old. I'm his #1 fan.
'------------'

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] livinlarge-2 13 years ago

I think you said it perfectly. Her daughter was in the room with a man who told her he would kill her kid if the cops stepped in the house. Instead of risking it, she decided to take, what she felt, was the safest route. I would probably do the same thing she did, but you're right; not everyone would make that decision.

[–] fitchrulz 13 years ago

The copper by the door told Jodie Foster's character if she was in danger but couldn't actually say to use a code like look to the side or blink a couple times. Something like that. That's why she did what she did.

[–] shanski_6 12 years ago

I really enjoyed this movie, but this bothered me as well! Though I can vaguely explain it away with the fact that she didn't know exactly how the officers would react and didn't want to take any chances.

However the thing that I really couldn't understand is why -when they first realised they had an intercom- they didn't scream and shout through this. They tried calling through that air vent when there was no chance anyone would hear them, yet they didn't try to scream and shout through the loudspeaker? I feel like people on the street would hear that... and in fact I believe when the police come to check on the house they make a comment that neighbours rang up to complain about the loudspeaker.

[–] carmmm4 12 years ago

The idea is to call for help withOUT the bad guys hearing.

[–] shanski_6 12 years ago

But why would she care when she's safe in the panic room?

[–] Zerose 12 years ago

The neighbor thought the gas explosion was "the loudspeaker", like a TV with a surround sound system.

The film may have missed out on one thing: the kitchen floor has no blinds or curtains so anyone could look down from the street and see the corpse, or at least his legs, on kitchen floor as it was pretty near the window.

[–] peterstrauss-1 12 years ago

Yeah this scene was frustrating. All defence of the scene's logic in this thread is all hypotheticals, like "what if the cops just ran in?", except this is a movie and they could have followed her orders if it was written that way. It's pretty unbelievable that she wouldn't tell them about the panic room and her daughter when no one could listen in on the conversation.

[–] retroguy02 11 years ago

Umm... seems like everyone here is missing out on a crucial piece of information: there was already a dead body in the house (Junior), and when the cops arrived Sarah was the one with the gun that killed him – which means she could be dragged into a legal battle over murder (if I remember correctly, Raoul was wearing leather gloves when he fired the gun). So there's that.

Also, remember that Raoul had already beaten her husband to a pulp – in a situation like this, judgement gets cloudy and she probably thought they wouldn't hesitate to kill Sarah if they even suspected that cops waiting outside. And since the burglars' original plan was to use Sarah as a hostage while they escaped, Meg also probably didn't want to drag her daughter into a deadly standoff between the cops and the burglars. Either way, she had to take a huge risk to find a way out.

[–] sage2112 9 years ago

The simple answer is, she wasn't going to do *anything* to jeopardize her daughter's life.