Why do so many reviews paint Caleb as the villain?

I have yet to see the film due to limited release but I'll get to see it once i get my copy from overseas. Anyways the trailer seems to paint caleb as the bad guy and somewhat creepy, now i don't know if that's just the way the trailer was put together or if it's the way caleb comes across as being creepy etc.

Off topic chris would have made a fantastic joker

"Some of the worst things imaginable have been done with the best intentions"

Maybe relatively speaking he was. I don't think the movie makes him out to be a total villain. He just comes off as a slightly mischievous opportunist. He was always willing to work and contribute and he didn't actually initiate the sex with Ann. More than anything he just seemed young and stupid which could also be said about Ann.

There was never any indication that he was a horrible person. Although he did stalk them and steal food from them for a few days.

Although the story he told of the miner killing others in the underground - I have a feeling he actually did the killing.

That's why John told the story of finding the boy. He wanted Caleb to open up and say something about his journey there. Although that backfired because Caleb knows how to lie and John does not. John tries to lie but it's obvious. Caleb was a smooth talker and that scared John.

You guys, it's an Adam and Eve story. Caleb is the "snake"

I thought they did a pretty good job of leaving it to the viewer decide the character's motivations. They could have hit us over the head with who was good and bad as other movies do.

I have not read any reviews but it would not surprise me that Caleb was indeed painted as the villain.

He was kinda creepy

Loomis came first so that makes Caleb the "intruder"

I think it's almost entirely because of the fact that John is established as a character by the time Caleb shows up. The audience sympathizes with the character that they know, perceiving Caleb to be an interloper.

I think that's the point. We're meant to sympathize with someone who is objectively "the bad guy" because we get to know him before he crosses that line. Most bad guys seem alright beforehand. He puts on the airs of a decent person when it's convenient for him, but he becomes a murderer and a liar as soon as the circumstances change. His courtship of Anne become sinister - and not just a little revolting - when you realize how calculated it is, after he has crossed the moral event horizon.

By killing Caleb, an innocent and a valuable asset to their long-term survival, he becomes an irredeemable character. That viewers can look past that is an illustration of the ease with which we can excuse morally repugnant acts when given the right perspective on them.

He implied to Ann that non-believers had no place in the valley. So yes, that was kind of ominous. If he had lived, one of them will eventually kill the other anyway. Remember that Caleb also nearly shot John in the back when they were hunting the turkey?

John is calculating at times, yes, but it was driven by fear. He still shows his true self even when it damages his image in the eyes of Ann.

Caleb on the other hand, was manipulative and a liar through and through. And it's driven by outright malice.

And don't be so sure about him not being a murderer. The story about the miners is fishy as hell.

The point is, John may have killed him, but at least he hesitated. Caleb wouldn't even have bothered pulling him up the first time around.